1920-03-15

[Stage Direction]
Amendment to Radio-Telegraph Regulation No. 92.-Hon. Mr. Ballantyne.
Report of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.-Mr. Hugh Clark.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

*Mr. PARENT:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to abolish the Board of Commerce?
2.	If not, does the Government intend giving said Board, by means of legislation, more powers with regard to either textile, dairy or newsprint situation?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The Government has not had under consideration any legislation with regard to, abolishing the Board of Commerce.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ENLISTMENTS IN C.E.F.
Mr. GRIESBACH:: 1.	What were the enlistments in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914 to 1919, by provinces?
2 What are the number of C.E.F. pensioners, in each province!, and the amount paid for C.E.F. pensions in each province, as of January 1, 1920?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	No definite information can be furnished: until all documents have been returned, from overseas and compilations made, but the following are the figures for enlistments, 1914 to 15th November, 1918, obtained from returns rendered by telegraph from the several Military Districts and allotted to the provinces from which such recruits were-obtained:
Ontario, 245,677; Quebec, 82,793; New Brunswick, 25,864; Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, 33,342; Manitoba, 66,319;. Saskatchewan, 37,666; Alberta, 45,146; British Columbia, 51,438; Yukon, 2,327; total, 590,572.
2.	Number of C.E.F. pensioners in each province as at January 1, 1920:
Ontarfo, 25,660; Quebec, 6,111; Manitoba, 5,411; Alberta, 6,269; Saskatchewan, 4,585; British Columbia, 6,436; Prince Edward Island, 384; New Brunswick, 2,053; Nova: Scotia, 3,315; total, 60,224.
IMr. Ballantyne.]

Amount paid to C.E.F. pensioners in each province, as at January, 1920:
Ontario, $5,091,200.60; Quebec, $1,212,483.51; Manitoba, $1,073,596.51; Alberta, $1,243,32.29; Saskatchewan, $909,709.85; British Columbia, $1,276,966.76; Prince Edward Island, $76,189.44; New Brunswick, $407,335.73; Nova Scotia, $657,729.15; total, $11,949,043.84.


VISIT OF CABINET MINISTERS TO CARLETON-VI'CTORIA COUNTY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRA1N:
1.	Is the Government aware that three members of the Cabinet visited the Carleton-Viotoria county. New Brunswick, in the latter part of the month of October, 1919?
2.	If so, what was the object of their visit?
3.	Was the visit undertaken in connection with official business of the Government?
4.	Was the object of the visit of these gentlemen attained?
5.	Was a government private car used m connection with the visit of the ministers to Carleton-Victoria county, as above?
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The Government is aware that three members of the Cabinet visited Carleton-Victoria county, New Brunswick, in the latter part of the month of October, 1919.
2.	The object of their visit was to take part in an election for a member of the House of Commons which was being held at that time in that county.
3.	I do not know that any official business was transacted by those gentlemen while they were there.
4.	Whether the object of their visit was attained or not can be answered by each individual according to his wishes or his views. It was not entirely barren in respect to the efforts of some of these gentlemen.
5.	A Government private car was not used for the expedition.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY-OFFICIAL CARS.
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	How many official and business cars are there in use at the present time in operation of the Canadian National Railway system?
2.	Are the operating expenses of these cars charged to Pullman account?
1 3. If not, to what account?


Hon. J. D. REID:: 1.	Forty-one official cars used by the management and superintendents in connection with operation over entire system of 14,000 miles.
2.	No.
3.	The expenses of the above cars are charged to operating expenses under the headings of administration and superintendence.


EXPULSION OF THE TURK FROM EUROPE.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What is tho policy of the Government on the question of the expulsion of the Turk from Europe?
2.	Has the Government been consulted on this question?
3.	If so, will the correspondence be made public?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: The terms of the Treaty with Turkey have been under consideration by the Government and the Government has made representations in reference thereto. An announcement will be made in due course.
MILITARY EXPEDITION TO CHICOUTIMI. Mr. SAVARD:
1.	What were the costs incurred during ithe fall of 1918, in connection with the expedition of a regiment, in command of Lieut.-Colonel L. A. Beaubien, to Chicoutimi?
2.	How long was the said regiment stationed at Chicoutimi?
3.	How many officers and men comprised the regiment?
4.	How many conscripted men were exempted from military service or obtained leave of absence?
5.	How many defaulters were brought to Quebec by1 the police?
6.	How many of such defaulters died in military hospitals?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Pay and allowances, 15 officers and 234 other ranks, 19-9-18 to 15-11-18, $18,568.70; travelling expenses, $3,153.37; total, $21,722.07.
2.	Prom 19th September, 1918, to 15th November, 1918.
3.	15 officers, 234 other ranks; total 249 all ranks.
4.	The number of defaulters dealt with by this detachment was 601, of which number 316 were granted leave owing to low category, 173 were granted harvest leave, 9 leave of absence, 98 sent to Quebec.
5.	98 defaulters were brought to Quebec by military police.
6.	4 of such defaulters died in military hospital; two of pneumonia and two of influenza.


THE ONE BIG UNION.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	What attitude has the Government taken toward the One Big Union?
2.	Is it considered to be a legal organization?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The Government has not given any recognition to the " One Big Union."

2.	The question of the legality or other- 6. Yes. Ontario and Quebec each $10,000. wise of this organization has not been deter- New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, mined as yet by any court decision in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Colum-Canada.	bia, each $5,000.
ILLEGAL LOBSTER FISHING PROSECU-	The Government has no information.
TIONS.	8. No.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish & Guysbor-ough):: 1.	Have any prosecutions been brought during the calendar year 1919 for illegal lobster fishing?
2.	If so, how many, and what is the gross amount of the fines collected?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	83 prosecutions; $2,350-also collected, $45 outstanding as time was given by the Justices for making payment.


STEAMER &quot; 33.&quot;
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish & Guysbor-ough):: 1.	How much was paid into the Consolidated Revenue as the proceeds of the fish caught by Government Steamer "33" under the direction of Mr. J. J. Cowie, referred to on pages 46, 47 and 48 of the Annual Fisheries Report, 1918?
2.	What was the gross cost of the said fishing operations for the said season, including coal, fishing nets and gear, wages, salaries, repairs, supplies, and expenditures of every description connected therewith?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	$1,780.57.
2.	$10,384.94.


IMPERIAL PRESS CONFERENCE.
*Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has it been decided to hold an Imperial Press Conference in Canada?
2.	If so, when and at what place?
3.	Who are to be the officers responsible for calling the Conference and carrying it through?
4.	How much is Canada contributing towards the expense of the Conference?
5.	Is the Government aware that the Executive Council of the National Union of Journalists has declined the invitation to send a delegate to the next Imperial Press Conference?
6.	Have the Provincial Governments been asked to help in financing the Conference, and if so, have all or any of them agreed to do so, and to what extent in each case?
7.	Can Publishers be included in the Conference along with Journalists?
8.	Has the Conference been changed from a Conference of Journalists as was intended to a Conference of Publishers?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Ottawa, August 4 to 7, 1920.
3.	Canadian Press Association.
4.	Under consideration.
5.	No.


CANADIAN MISSION IN LONDON.
Mr. McMASTER:: ,1. What was the total expense of the Canadian Mission in London from its inception to its close?
2.	What are the names of those to whom salaries equivalent to one thousand dollars per annum, and over, were paid, and the aggregate amount paid to each?
3.	What was the number of those who were engaged with the Mission whose salaries were less than one thousand dollars per annum, and the aggregate amount paid to all?
4.	What were the expenses of the Mission: (a) for office rent; (b) for house rent; (c) for food and household expenses; (d) railway transportation; (e) motor transportation.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 
Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Canada is included in the first-class under the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union and therefore contributes on this basis to the expenses of the Secretariat of the League of Nations as provided in Article 6 of the Covenant of the League.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	The actual amount which Canada may be called upon to contribute will necessarily depend upon the number and classification of the States which ultimately become members of the League of Nations.
5.	Expenses will be provided by means of an estimate submitted to the House.


GASCONS WHARF.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: 1.	Why was the Contract not awarded and the work proceeded with on the wharf at Gascons, Quebec, after said work had been auth-ized by Parliament, and after tenders had been called for by the Department of Public Works?
2.	Does the Government intend proceeding with this work during the present season?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	and 2. Information will be given when Estimates are laid before Parliament.


BONAVENTURE PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Who is the engineer at present in charge of public works in Bonaventure County?


Hon. Mr. REID:: L. G. Trudeau is acting as District Engineer.	*


BONAVENTURE COUNTY WHARVES.
Charles Marcil: Does the Government intend repairing the wharves at St. Omer, St. Bonaventure and St. Charles de Caplan, Bonaventure county, during the present season?


John Dowsley Reid: Information will be
given when the Estimates are laid before Parliament.


MATAPEDIA VALLEY HIGHWAY.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	Does the Government intend giving effect to the request made by a deputation of citizens
of Matane, Bonaventure and Cxasp6 counties for further assistance towards improving the highway running parallel to the Intercolonial railway in the Matapedia Valley on the ground that most of said highway has been displaced to make way for the railway and is at present almost impassable for some twenty miles and more through territory unorganized municipally?
2.	How much has been expended on this road by the Department of Public Works since 1911?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	$10,497.12.


RESTIGOUCHE RIVER-INTERPROVINCIAL BRIDGE.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	Has the Government lately received a request for the erection of an interprovincial highway bridge over the Restigouche River at Campbellton, N.B., and Cross Point, Quebec? If so, from whom?
2.	Has any action been taken or is any contemplated?
3.	If contemplated, is it the intention of the Government to erect a highway bridge only or adhere to the original scheme of putting up a combined railway and highway bridge?


John Dowsley Reid: 1,	2 and 3. No.


CAMPBELLTON-CROSS POINT FERRY.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	To whom has the contract for the interprovincial ferry between Campbellton, N.B., and Cross Point, Quebec, been let, at what price, and for what term?
2.	Is the present rate an increase over the old one?
3.	Are there new conditions in the contract as to the fares and hours of service?
4.	If so, wThat are they?
5.	Who were the tenderers and what were the respective tenders?


John Dowsley Reid: 1 and 5. Contract not yet awarded.
2,	3 and 4. New regulations provide that for six hours during the day, at times of least traffic, one round trip only will be made every hour instead of every half hour. No change in fare except that tariff for one automobile with driver is fixed at thirty cents each way, this being the same rate as for a single team.


QUEBEC. ORIENTAL AND ATLANTIC, QUEBEC AND WESTERN RAILWAYS.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	Does the Government contemplate taking over the Quebec, Oriental and Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railways for the purpose of linking up these roads with the Canadian National Railway System?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).
1.	Have any complaints been received by the Board of Railway Commissioners in the last twelve months concerning the service given the public by the Quebec, Oriental and Atlantic and the Quebec and Western Railways?
2.	If so, what action has been taken?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes. Complaints have been received from Messrs, the Hon. Chas. Marcil, Mr. John Hall Kelly, and others.
2.	The complaints have been investigated by the Board with the railway company and the financial conditions disclosed do not warrant any additional service during the winter months to that being given by the Company.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).
1.	Has the Board of Railway Commissioners satisfied itself that the Quebec, Oriental and Atlantic and the Quebec and Western railways are sufficiently equipped in steam power, passenger and freight cars required for the business on these roads?
2.	If not, does it contemplate doing so in view of the oomplaints made in this regard?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes. The Board has satisfied itself that the line is sufficiently equipped with steam power also sufficient passenger cars. The company depends upon other lines, for freight cars the bulk of its traffic being through traffic with other roads.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).
1.	Was the suspension of the daily train and mail service on the Quebec. Oriental and Atlantic and the Quebec and Western railways, -during the present winter, authorized by the Post Office Department or by the Board of Railway Commissioners?
2.	Is a daily train and mail service at present given on these roads, Sundays excepted? If not, why?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	No. The time table was filed by the
railway company in the usual manner and notice given to the public of the change of service.	y
2.	No. The present service given by the company is a tri-weekly passenger train Matapedia. to Gaspe, a mixed train service Matapedia to New Carlisle, and an accommodation tri-weekly New Carlisle to Gasp<5 Mail is carried daily between Matapedia and New Carlisle. The reason assigned by the company for restricted service is on account of its financial condition.
EDMONTON POST OFFICE-PARCEL DOST. Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton).
1. Has the Postmaster General's Department succeeded in placing any responsibility for the 
disappearance of a parcel of money, fifty thousand dollars, from the Post Office in the City of Edmonton?
2. Has Georg-e Armstrong, Postmaster, been exonerated in connection with the theft of said parcel ?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	The case is still under investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
2.	No charge whatever has been made against the Postmaster in reference to this loss.


ST. HERMAS POSTAL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ETHIER.
1.	Were tenders called for the postal service between S't. Hermas village and the C.P.R. Station at St. Hermas, Quebec?
2.	What mail carrier was in charge of this service before the calling of tenders for the new contract?
3.	What was the amount of this contract?
4.	Why were new tenders called?
5.	How many tenderers were there, what are their names and the amount of their respective tenders?
6.	To whom was the contract awarded?
7.	At what price?
Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	M. Lafond.
3.	$348.00.
4.	Contractor Lafond refused to renew his expiring contract on existing terms from 1st April, 1920.
5.	Three: Janvier Lacombe, $396, reduced to $374; Euclide Levert, $587.50, reduced to $348; Zenon Filion, $600, reduced to $490.
6.	Euclide Levert.
7.	$348.


SKEENA RIVER SALMON HATCHERY.
Mr. DUFF:: '
1.	Is the Government erecting and equipping a salmon hatchery on the Skeena river, British Columbia?
2.	Is so, at what particular part of the river is said .hatchery being erected?
3.	Is it being built and equipped by contract or otherwise?
4.	Were tenders asked for?
5.	If so, what are the names of the tenderers and the respective amount of each tender?
6.	When will the hatchery be completed?
7.	Is the Williamson and Parry system for the propagation of salmon being installed in said hatchery? If so, why?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On Granite creek, Lakelse lake.
3.	Built by day labour under the direction of the resident engineer.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	September 1, 1920.
7.	No.

CITY POST OFFICES IN QUEBEC [DOT]	PROVINCE.


Mr. SAVAJRD:: 1.	How many post offices are there in the following cities: Quebec, Three Rivers, Shaw-inigan, Grand MSre, Riviere du Loup?
2.	What is the population of each of these cities?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	Quebec-Head office, four postal stations and nine sub-offices; Three Rivers-head office and two sub-offices; Shawinigan Falls-head office and one Sub-office; Grand Mere-two post offices; Riviere du Loup- four post offices.
2.	Population-Quebec, 108,366; Three Rivers, 23,000; Shawinigan Falls, 12,000; Grand Mere, 8,000; Riviere du Loup, 8,715.


INSTITUTIONS PROVIDED WITH MILITARY UNIFORMS.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	How many institutions, colleges or schools in Canada, were provided by the Department of Militia with military uniforms for their pupils?
2.	How many in each province?
3.	What is the total number of students and pupils who have been so furnished with military uniforms at the expense of the Government?
4.	What is the total cost of these uniforms? Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:
1.	230 (odd, partly worn and under-sized uniforms).
2.	Nova Scotia, 9; New Brunswick, 20; Quebec, 21; Ontario, 106; Manitoba, 4; Saskatchewan, 34; Alberta, 21; British Columbia, 15.
3.	Approximately 16,000, all of whom were only partially outfitted, not completely, as stock was available.
4.	$63,841.90.


MILITARY INSTRUCTORS AT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. SEGUIN:: L What is the number of military instructors sent by the Government to give military instructions in the different educational institutions in the country?
2. What is the amount paid, by month, by the Government to these instructors?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1 and 2. No military instructors are sent to educational institutions, except at the request of the educational authorities concerned, and then only when instructors are available.
At the present time there are only six permanent force instructors detailed to the physical training cadre, permanent. The special duty of these non-commissioned officers is to teach physical training in the various normal schools, at the request of tjie educational authorities.
In addition to these, there are two noncommissioned officers in military district No. 4, Montreal, and three in military district No. 5, Quebec, and one in military district No. 7, St. John, who are assisting in the instruction of cadet corps.
At any place where permanent troops are stationed, the general officer commanding might utilize the services of a permanent force non-commissioned officer to help with the instruction of cadet corps, if required to do so, and his services could be spared.
, These instructors receive the ordinary C.E.F. rates of pay of their rank. The number varies from time to time.
/


O.G.S. &quot;SIMCOE.&quot;
Mr. LEGER:: 1.	Was the steamer C.G.S. "Simcoe" built in Canada?
2.	If not, where and when?
3.	What was her gross net and deadweight
tonnage?	/
4.	When did she last undergo overhauling and repairs?
5.	Was she a fit vessel for ocean navigation?
6.	Was she a seaworthy vessel for the purpose which she was put to?
7.	When and where was she lost?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	No.
2.	Newcastle-on-Tyne, G.B.,_1909.
3.	Gross 913.38; net 437.63; deadweight, unknown.
4.	October, 1917.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes.
7.	December 7, 1917, southwest of Magdalen islands, Quebec, in gulf of St. Lawrence.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. LEDBC:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to substitute electric locomotives on the Grand Trunk railway, to enter the city of Montreal from the western limits to Bonaventure station?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to reduce the speed of the trains to six miles an hour in entering the city of Montreal, west of Bonaventure station, so as to prevent accidents?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to put in execution the project of establishing an elevated railroad on the Grand Trunk line, for the protection of the public?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1. When the Government get entire control of the Grand Trunk Railway system the whole question of Montreal terminals will be considered.

2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


DIRECTOR OF CANADIAN NEWS SERVICE AT WASHINGTON.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: 1.	What number of employees are on the staff of the director of Canadian News Service at Washing-ton?
2.	What are their names and respective salaries?
3.	To whom is the news supplied?
4.	What has been the total cost of the administration of this office to date?
5.	Out of what fund are the expenses of this office met?
6.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue this service?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	There is no director of Canadian News Service at Washington, but there is a director of Canadian News Service at New York. The staff consists of five.
2.	Their names and salaries are: Colonel J. A. Cooper, director, $-5,000 per annum; F. Hudd, $300 -per month; Mrs. E. iB. Sprague, $25 per week; Miss D. M. Jones, $28 per week; Miss A. Roonan, $20 per week.
3.	Supplied to the American Press.
4.	(17th July, 1919-lst February, 1920)- $10,185.79.
5.	The expenses of the office are met by equal contributions from the Departments of External Affairs, Trade and Commerce, and Immigration and Colonization.
6.	An announcement will be made in due course.


EXPERIMENTAL FARMS IN BONAVENTURE.
Mr. MARCEL (Bonaventure):: 1.	How many experimental or demonstration stations have been established in Bonaventure county?
2.	Where are they situated, in whose hands are they placed, and under what conditions?
3.	Have they been successful?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to establish any other stations? If so, where?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: I- Two Illustration Stations are in operation in Bonaventure county.
2. One, of 10 acres, is carried on at New Carlisle by Mr. E. M. Legallais, of Paspe-biac West P. O., and has been in operation since 1916. The other, consisting of 16 acres, is carried on at New Richmond, by Mr. J. B. Cyr, of Little Cascapedia. They are under agreement to follow certain crop rotations on this land, for which they receive $5 a year for each acre. (For precise terms of agreement, see Form of Contract attached).

3.	The results at New Carlisle are considered as fairly satisfactory up to the present; and at New Richmond, quite promising to date.
4.	The establishment of additional stations in Bonaventure county is not in contemplation at present. So far, it has been possible to carry on, in the whole Dominion, some 48 Illustration Stations in all, these being located in the provinces of Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Naturally, in arranging for new stations in any province, an endeavour is made to give first consideration to large sections of territory without any stations at all in their midst.


REMUNERATION OF RURAL DELIVERY MAIL CARRIERS.
Mr. EULER:: 1.	Has the attention of the Government been drawn to the state of dissatisfaction existing among the rural delivery mail carriers because of the inadequate scale of remuneration consequent upon the increased cost of living?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to modify existing contracts and to increase the rate of pay to the rural carriers in future contracts so as to provide for relief as justified by said increased cost of living and the increased cost of rural delivery?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 1 and 2. A number of appeals have been received from rural mail contractors for increased remuneration on account of the increased cost of living. Each appeal is considered on its own merits, due regard being paid to the present rate of remuneration and the date on which the contract was entered into.
The policy of the Government is to do everything possible to ameliorate the financial conditions of the rural mail couriers, but the Post Office Act makes it unlawful to increase the rate paid to a mail contractor without first inviting public tenders except when an addition is made to the regular service or when it can be shown that the quantity of mail matter which he is required to convey has increased to such an extent as to necessitate the employment of additional equipment and couriers.
If investigation shows that a contractor entered into his contract at a time so recent as to make it possible to foresee and consequently provide against the increase in operating expenses, there could be no good grounds for any drastic action by the Government to release him; but if on The other hand, the contractor entered into his obligations at a time when it was impossible to foresee the sudden rise in the cost of operation, and is consequently, through no fault of his own, carrying on his work at

a loss, steps are taken to invite tenders with a view to making other satisfactory contract arrangements which when completed would lead to his release.


OHARHEVOIX-MQNTMORENCY CUSTOM OFFICERS.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many custom officers .are there in the county of Charlevoix^Montmorency?
2.	What are their names, where do they reside, and where did they reside before appointment?
3.	When were they appointed and at what salary?
4.	Have the said salaries been increased since appointment?
5.	If so, when and to what extent?
.Hon. Mt. BURRELL:
1.	Two.
2.	J. G. Martel, Point au Pic, transferred from port of Quebec, December 1, 1917. Edouard Leelerc, St. Paul's Bay, at time of employment a resident of St. Paul's Bay.
3.	J. G. Martel first employed at Point au Pic December 1, 1917, with salary at $1,000 per annum. Edouard Leelerc first employed at St. Paul's Bay April 27, 1910, receives $5
' for each vessel entered and cleared.
4.	No increase in salary granted since appointment at present station.
5.	Answered by 4.


CANADIAN WHEAT 'SHIPMENTS TO GREECE.
*Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 1.	How many cans, if any, are now loaded wiith wheat destined for Greece, but which cannot be discharged and relieved, because Greece refuses to accept such wheat at a higher price than contracted for?
2.	How long have said cars been kept idle on that account?
3.	When does the Government expect to relieve these cars?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1, 2 and 3: It is not possible to say how many cars, if any, are loaded with wheat destined for Greece, but which cannot be discharged and relieved because Greece refused to accept such wheat at a higher price than contracted for. No cars are being detained at the present time, nor have any been detained for the last ten days on ac-. [DOT]- .count of delay in loading the vessels at ports ready to receive the grain. There is now no delay on that account.


DOMINION OANNERS.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1. Is the Government aware that the Dominion Canners form an important combine in this country?
i 2. If so, does the Government intend to suppress this combine by legal proceedings under legislation against combines which are contrary to the general .interests of the consumers?
3.	Is the Government aware that the Dominion Oanners, last year, made profits whereby the directors were enabled to declare a 19 per cent dividend?
.	4. If so, why the Government does not confiscate a part of these profits extorted from the consumers of Canada?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	The Government is not aware that the Dominion Oanners form an important combine in this country.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The Government is not aware of what profits were made by the Dominion Canners last year.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):: ,
How many of the 22,954 temporary appointments made by the Board of Civil Service Commissioners since the Armistice are at present on the pay rolls of the various departments of the Government?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
John Ewen Sinclair: For a copy of all papers, documents, telegrams, correspondence and reports made between the Department of Naval Service and the Inspector of Fisheries in Prince Edward Island or any other party or parties regarding the sale of the lobster hatchery at Charlottetown, P.E.I.


John Ewen Sinclair: For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams and other documents relating to the retention in office, as a Fishery Overseer, of John A. Dillon, of Guysborough, N.IS.


DISMISS AX. OF JAMES CONNER.
Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, in the interests of the public service of this country and in justice to a discharged official, the Public Utilities Commissioner of Manitoba be authorized to investigate the summary dismissal, in the autumn of 1917, of James Conner, who for many years served the country as a preventive officer, and that he report his findings to this House, coupled with a recommendation as' to what action should be taken in order that justice shall be achieved.
He said: Before the motion is put, Mr. Speaker, I desire to speak briefly to it. This is the third occasion on which I have made an attempt to secure justice for a faithful official. I have already told the story to the House at two previous sessions and I purpose to tell jt again. I want to ascertain for myself whether or not justice can be obtained for an official who served this country as faithfully as he knew how for

twenty long years, and who was summarily dismissed, receiving notice, I think, on October 4 that his services were dispensed with as from the 30th of the previous month. I brought the matter to the attention of the House two sessions ago and was promised by the Minister of Immigration that it would be investigated and that justice would be done-I think he said that justice would be done. Nothing, however, was done in the case, and last session I again brought the matter to the attention of the House when the present Acting. Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) gave his pledge that there would be a thorough investigation to the end that justice might be meted out to this official. Up to the present time, so far as I know, absolutely nothing has been done. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to cross the floor of the House and take a place with the Opposition, nor do I wish to ally myself at present with the party led by my hon. friend the member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), but I do want to ascertain whether or not justice can be done by this Union Government which I have stood by with more or less faithfulness since its constitution. Of course, if justice cannot be obtained from the Government it may be necessary for me to organize a party of my/ own, and I will see that the right thing is done.


Mr. BUEEAU:: A one-man party.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Well, never mind. Some great movements have been started by eminent men, though perhaps they were not so great as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau).


Mr. PECK:: May I ask my hon. friend
if he expects participating in the salary of the leader of the Opposition in the event of his crossing the floor of the House?


Robert Lorne Richardson: No. I am quite free to say to my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Peck) that if ever I attained to the position of leader of the Opposition I should not ask for nor expect any salary. I should take the position free, gratis and for nothing, and discharge its duties to the very best of my ability. But, joking aside, Mr. Speaker, I desire to present, as briefly as I possibly can, the facts of this case.
Twenty years ago, when the boundary was largely unguarded, I succeeded in inducing the Government to appoint a Scotchman named James Conner, who lived along the boundary, to protect the wood that existed in such abundance to the north.
I think he received a salary of $200 a year, but he guarded that boundary with ex-

emplary faithfulness. Later on, when it was necessary to have a preventive officer in that locality, Mr. Conner was appointed to the position, and I think he was given a salary of $600 a year. It is a long time since I represented that constituency, but Mr. Conner continued in that position as preventive officer with the 

 salary I have mentioned. At a later stage I shall state what his collections were in order that hon. members may form some idea of his efficiency. When the immigration from the United States began to pour into that part of the country, Mr. Conner was appointed Immigration Officer with an additional salary of $100, and in that connection for twelve years he guarded the boundary. He looked after all the immigrants for twelve years, during which time immigration poured into the country. Now, a little over two years ago when immigration ceased and coincident with the time the Union Government was organized, a petty conspiracy on the part of some understrappers was hatched against Mr. Conner, and he was notified that his services would be no longer required. As I have already said, he received notice on the 4th of October, his dismissal taking effect in September. I wish hon. members would listen carefully to this statement, because I am sure their hearts would burn with the same indignation that filled mine when the facts were presented to me. Mr. Conner knew me and wrote to me telling me of the facts, and I wrote to the late John MacDougald, Commissioner of Customs, who informed me that the man was dismissed on the ground of economy, and that a man named Nesbitt had been sent from Winnipeg to take his place. I instituted inquiries and ascertained that Nesbitt had been appointed Preventive Officer under the Customs Department at a salary, I think, of $1,050 for one office alone, whereas this man had rendered admirable service for twenty years, the last twelve years of which period he had done work for the Immigration Department for an additional $100. Yet he was dismissed on the ground of economy, forsooth! I naturally was indignant over the whole matter, and after being elected I made an investigation that convinced me that there had been great injustice to an official whose service's had been absolutely beyond reproach. I therefore brought the matter to the attention of the House, for I know not of any other way to obtain justice for this man. I am not engaged in wire-pulling with any minister or the officers of any department. As a member of the House I like to present

the facts of any case such as this right on the floor of Parliament, because I am satisfied that the sense of justice which must be alive in the mind of every hon. member must recognize that justice is imperative in this instance. The man has done faithful iwork for twenty years, and I am determined to urge his case, and to lay the circumstances before the House as forcefully as I possibly can, until justice is obtained.
When I found out what the facts were, as I have already said, I immediately brought the matter to the attention of the House and I received a pledge from the right hon. gentleman who is acting as Prime Minister. I may read from Hansard what took place in the House. In the course of my remarks I said:


Robert Lorne Richardson: I felt I would keep at this thing to And out whether justice could be obtained in a case of this kind. If the position had been given to a returned soldier, probably Mr. Conner would have been perfectly satisfied and so would I.


George Green Foster: I will try my very best to give a declaration after what the hon. gentleman has been good enough to say about me. I do not know the least thing about the case except that I have heard the story of my hon. friend. I am not impugning that at ail; it is, I dare say, correct, but I think I will have to ask my hon. friend to await an answer from the responsible head of the department- it is very dangerous work mixing in with the business of colleagues


Robert Lorne Richardson: If the right hon. leader of the House will say that when the papers come down, if he is leading the House at the end of the session, he will make a declaration, I will subside at once.


George Green Foster: I can do that right away. A declaration will be made either by the responsible minister or by myself.
The papers came down, and what did they show? Did they show that this man was inefficient? No; they showed that one of these men .in the conspiracy that was formed to injure Conner wrote to Thomas Geliy. Immigration Agent in Winnipeg, to endeavour if possible to fish up some information that this man was not efficient. Finally Mr. Geliy was compelled to report that Mr. Conner was entirely efficient. I looked over the reports, and found that the immigration inspector 'had .reported the man ais being highly capable, and I may inform the House that it would be impossible, if you went over the province of Manitoba with a fine-toothed comb, to discover a more thoroughly reliable man, a man of more unquestionable integrity and sterling worth than Mr. Conner. For the last thirty or forty years he has lived on the plains in Manitoba, having raised a large' family of some ten children. With 27
that family he has farmed some eight or ten sections of land, and in the early days, I may say, he used to be an engineer, running a threshing machine at three or foui-o'clock in the .morning with the thermometer down to twenty-five and thirty below zero, in an effort to earn sufficient money to keep the roof over his family. I think, therefore, in view of all the circumstances, it is a matter of grave injustice that a man of strict sobriety and integrity Should be .summarily dismissed for inefficiency, when his career distinctly shows absolutely the reverse. It was not a matter of inefficiency, by any means, Mr. Speaker, there was a conspiracy hatched by understrappers in the department, and as a result of their machinations this man was dismissed from a post he bad filled so well for such a long time. As I say, my indignation naturally burned over the affair, and I was impelled to bring the matter to the attention of .this House on two previous occasions, and aim bringing it again. No action having been taken by the responsible department, I am now asking that the Public Utilities Commissioner of Manitoba, a man of great probity, Mr. P. A. McDonald, who enjoys the implicit confidence of the community, be .asked to make an investigation. It is due this faithful public servant that he be vindicated. He lies under the stigma of having been dismissed for lack of efficiency, and he should he vindicated without undue delay. He drew only a small salary and was a comparatively obscure official, but that - is no reason why justice should not he done him by Parliament. In our eyes he ought to have the same protection as if he occupied the highest "position in the land. Let us do him justice, Mr. Speaker; let us ascertain whether he was really inefficient. I simply ask that the Utilities Commissioner of Manitoba make an investigation into the matter. I think it is due to Mr. Conner that this step should be taken and that this House Should know whether or not he has been improperly treated. I further ask that a recommendation be made as to what should be done in the premises. Mr. Conner said to me: "I am not asking that you shall give me my job back if there is a returned soldier who desires it, but I do ask to be vindicated." And that is what I demand this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I am satisfied that no hon. member who has listened to the facts as I have recounted them will decline to support this motion. All I ask is that justice-simple common justice-be done to as faithful a public



servant as ever occupied a position in the public service of this country. I deeply regret that my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Bolton) is not here. He knows all about the facts. He promised me that he would second the motion, present the facts to the House and endorse what I have said.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry that the hon. member for Lisgar is not here because I understood the hon. member for Springfield to point in his direction and I named him as the seconder of the motion. Not being in the House, he, of course, cannot second the motion.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am sure there is some man in the House who will second the motion.


Mr. DENIS:: I will second the motion.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Certainly; I am sure the leader of the Opposition or any other member would second the motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is purely a question of observing the rules of the House.


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Customs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I am not familiar with the matter that my hon. friend has taken up but as I have only recently taken charge of the Department of Customs-


Jean-Joseph Denis: I beg your pardon but I would like to make a few remarks with reference to this matter before the Minister speaks. The hon.. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) opened his lemarks by saying that this matter had been brought before the House for the third time. I am aware of it because this is the third tame that I have heard him speak about this man Conner. I am not interested in the matter except for the sake of seeing that justice is done. Upon the declaration made by the hon. member for Springfield, it appears to me that he has established a prima facie case. I cannot understand a member of Parliament and a supporter of the Government -standing up on the floor of this House and saying to the Government that he 'is here for the third time bringing up a matter, which at first sight, and on presentation of the case, shows a gross injustice done to this man James Conner. My hon. friend is now here for (he third time asking his own party to do justice in a case where injustice is absolutely apparent. But the hon. member for Springfield goes further. He says that he is going to bring this matter up year after year until justice has been done to James
[Mr. Richardson.!
Conner. I do not blame him for doing it, not because he is speaking against his own party but because I think that a member of Parliament who brings up a question like this o>ves it to himself, to his own responsibility and to his own dignity to see that justice is done. Consequently I would ask the Government to act in such a way that this question shall not again he brought before Parliament. This case with reference to James Conner is going to cost the country quite a lot of money if my hon. friend from Springfield who, I hope, may be a member of this House for many years, is going to bring it before Parliament year after year and rve are going to sit here year after year listening to his appeals to his own party without his being able to receive any satisfactory answer from them. These are the only remarks I have to make and I hope the Government will see fit to give a satisfactory answer to my hon. friend and do justice to this man, James -Conner, because if the facts as represented by the hon. member for Springfield are true-and no one has said so far that they are not true-there certainly has been' gross injustice done to this man and it is up to us to know whether we are going to see that this injustice -shall be remedied.


Martin Burrell: Mr. Speaker, I have very little to say on this matter. As I remarked just now to my hon. friend from Springfield, being somewhat new in the Department of Customs, I am not familiar with the subject except in so far as he has brought it before the House. I saw the return when it was brought down. My recollection of it is that it was a statement by the Deputy Minister of the Interior referring to the inefficiency of Mr. Conner. I think it is quite obvious that it would be rather unusual for this House to appoint the Public Utilities Commissioner of Manitoba to investigate this particular case but I see no reason, in view of the impression that this man has suffered an injustice, why there should not be some additional investigation to ascertain whether or not an injustice has been done. As far as I am personally concerned I am quite willing that that course should be taken. It is possible that the Civil Service Commission might look into it, or, if not it might be taken up by our own Department. I appreciate what the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) has said that it is not desirable that, the time of this House should be taken up with matters of this kind being brought up again and again and I appreciate the

position of my hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) who believes that there has been a real injustice done and he would like to have it remedied. I shall be only too glad to expedite inquiry in any reasonable way.


Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I would like
to add just ia word to what has been said by the Minister of Customs. It would appear that the Conner matter arose about the 5th October, 1917, and neither the present Minister of Customs nor I had anything to do with the incident.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That is right.


James Alexander Calder: Now as to the facts, because, after all, it is the facts that the House would like to have. I have discussed this matter on several occasions with the member for Springfield. It would appear that this man Conner had been in the public service for quite a while. He was in receipt of <a salary of some five or six hundred dollars from the Customs Department, and in addition about $100 from the Immigration Department. The member for Springfield knows Mr. Conner, I understand, well-has known him for years, knows him as a very respectable, law-abiding, decent citizen of the very best type.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Hear, hear.


James Alexander Calder: Now on the other hand- whether it is true or not I do not know- the records of the department would indicate that in so far as Mr. Conner's services in the Immigration Department were concerned they were not looked on as satisfactory. I think the member for Springfield wall bear me out when I say that the files of the department indicate that-not for a short period, but a period extending over a considerable number of years


Robert Lorne Richardson: No, I entirely dissent from that statement.


James Alexander Calder: Well, that is a fact that will have to be ascertained.


Robert Lorne Richardson: The papers will
show.


James Alexander Calder: I know that considerable stress is laid in the papers upon the file that Air. Conner was responsible-and 1 think contrary to warning, if I remember rightly-for allowing in a band of gypsies, whose admission cost the country a very large sum of money. In addition to that, it was almost impossible for the department to get any return or statement from him at all, and this went on for a considerable 271
length of time. I am not stating my view of the situation, I am merely trying to indicate what the departmental records show.
On the other hand, the member for Springfield has stated that there was a conspiracy on the part of certain understrappers in the department. Well, I do not know who were in the conspiracy, or why such a conspiracy should exist. I know that when I first took the matter up in the department, Air. Cory, who was acting as deputy minister, and Mr. Scott, who has been Superintendent of Immigration for years, intimated that in their judgment Mr. Conner was not capable of carryiiig on the work that the Immigration Department expected would be carried on at that point. That is their view, whether right or wrong. However, it seems to me that in view of the position taken by the member for -Spring-field-and I do not blame him at all if he considers there has been a grave injustice done this man, and if he thinks that the facts and statements set forth in the departmental records are -not correct-there is only one thing to do and that is to get the facts. It seems to me that those facts should be ascertained, not by the Public Utilities Commissioner of the province of Manitoba, but by some officer of the Federal -Government who can be trusted to do that work. I do not wish to enter into any controversy at the present time over the facts-I am merely trying to intimate what the record is -so far as the file itself shows it, and what the opinions of the officials o-f the department are, whether right or wrong, with reference to this man's work.
Although the member for Springfield -has had the opportunity, as he had last year of looking over the whole departmental record, if he is not satisfied-if lie considers that further investigation should be held, then I say we should grant that investigation in order to get at -the facts.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Air. Speaker, might I have the privilege, with the unanimous consent of the House, of saying a word or two further.


Jacques Bureau: You have the right to do
so, you are closing the Debate.


Air. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon.
member for Springfield is exercising his right to reply. If any other member wishes to speak on this matter he should speak now.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I merely wish to
state in reply to what the minister has said that this incident occurred before the Union

Government came into office. I was not seeking to cast any blame-of course the ministers know I was not-upon the Union Government, although the Union Government might fall just as well as any other government. I wish to make this further statement.. I looked over the papers when they were brought down, and I found this extract in a letter written by the Deputy Minister of the Interior. That is what convinced me that there was a conspiracy. I will read the extract:
I believe that your officer at that point-
Referring to Mr. Conner-
-is very old, and, from what I can gather very inefficient. The Commissioners, who have been investigating our Immigration Service recommend that the duties of the two departments be combined and that Mr. Nesbitt be placed in charge, the cost of the service to be apportioned between the two departments.
This is the matter about which I spoke to you over the telephone. Will you please let me have confirmation of this arrangement.
Why should the Deputy Minister of the Interior confer with the late John McDou-gald, Commissioner of Customs, over the telephone about the dismissal, the sidetracking, of this very decent man? Then there is the attempt to discredit him, and even the minister has fallen into the snare. The Minister of Immigration says Mr. Conner was inefficient and that he let some gypsies into the country. Now let us see about that. For twelve long years of the period that immigration poured into the Northwest from the United States, this man Conner looked after the interests of the public in connection with that department, he did it for $100 a year, and not a single complaint that I could notice was ever made against him-I will refer to the matter of the gypsies later on. So far as regards the complaint of not reporting to the Department Conner reported every month. The minister has probably taken *his cue from some member of the Civil Service who has told or tried to tell him, not the facts, but a garbled story about the situation.
Now with regard to the gypsies, and that is a matter in regard to which the officials ring the changes against this old official, Mr. Conner. There were a number of gypsies who came to the province of Manitoba some years ago bringing with them $35,000. They should have made entry at Emmerson but they came to Mr. Conner who was the officer there. They had all *this money, they had their horses, and they had a lot of effects, and Mr. Conner naturally thought they were settlers and he

allowed them to go through. But when it was found that they had practised some deception-I think I am correct in my facts -at Emmerson the matter was reported to Winnipeg and these men were corailed, brought back and tried at the town of Morden. The minister says it cost the country a large sum of money but I do not think he knew what he was talking about. Just look at the position the Government was in at that time. The gypsies were brought up for trial at Morden. Do you suppose the Dominion Government offered any evidence against them? They did not even appear against these men at all, and they were dismissed and sent out of the country, and the cost was practically nothing-probably only a few cents or a few dollars to anybody. Then the officials start in to make it appear that Conner is an inefficient man. I think I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of this House that so far from Conner being inefficient he was the most efficient officer the department had in that country. Let me cite a few further facts, because it is worth while under the circumstances; I do not want this matter coming up every session, I want it settled right here and now. It is true the present Minister of Customs knows nothing about the matter; he has not held his present office during the last two sessions. But the Minister of Immigration and Colonization does know something about it and he might, I think- because I have great regard for him-and a personal liking-have seen that justice was done. He did not do that. The leader of the House (Sir George Foster) who enjoys the respect, I am sure, of every member of the House, gave his promise that justice should be done and I accepted that promise. I did so in good faith and I said " Now, at last, Mr. Conner will have a square deal," but I suppose in the multitude of his duties the Acting Prime Minister has neglected to see that Mr. Conner did get a square deal.
Now to show you to what extent this man Conner is neither inefficient nor useless let me read a few facts. At Bannerman, which is a little bit farther west than where he guards the boundary, the revenue in 1918 was $2,481, and the cost of collection was $2,317, very nearly the amount of the entire revenue. I do not wish to tire the House, but I would like the facts to be known. At Boissevain the revenue was $3,117, the cost $1,000; at Cartwright $604 and $900, so that the country lost $300; at Deloraine $2,145 and $900; at Killarney $1,260 and $900; at Crystal city $1,777 and $1,000; at

Morden $2,887 and $1,050; at Hasket $2,208 and the salaries $1,394. But at Snowflake, where this prime old servant James Conner looked after the revenue, the collections in 1918 were $4,622 or nearly double the amount collected by any other officer in that territory. At what cost to the country? He got only $650 as Customs Officer and $100 as Immigration Officer, so it cost only $650 to collect $4,622. Yet all the other men were let go scot free, while this faithful servant, who collected nearly double the amount of revenue collected by any of the others, was dismissed for inefficiency.


An hon. MEMBER:: Have you got the
figures for last year?


Robert Lorne Richardson: No. I do not know what the collections would be, but I suppose they would be about the same, although the salary has been doubled. On the grounds of inefficiency and economy this fine old public servant was dismissed and a man appointed in his place at double the salary. It is such an outrageous proceeding that I marvel that my motion is not accepted at once. I am tired of bringing this matter before the department officials. I want a recommendation that will do justice to this faithful servant. Let us vindicate him. Let us not turn him adrift on the ground that he was inefficient and too old to serve his country. How will you ever get faithful service unless you treat your most menial official justly? You must give him fair play or you cannot expect decent service.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have fully covered the ground. I do not at all like the suggestion that the matter should be left to the department, because it will simply be glossed over. Let us settle it now. Let us name some tribunal to investigate this case. I lay awake many hours thinking and I finally hit upon the Public Utilities Commissioner of Manitoba, a man of honour and probity, as the best gentleman to investigate and report on the matter. But if the Government knows " a better 'ole '[DOT] let them go to it. I will accept any decent investigator, but I do not want to sit down without having a decision as to what shall be done. Let us have an investigation to ascertain whether this decent old man has been justly or unjustly treated, so that I may not be forced to bother the House with this case session after session. If the Government will put their heads together and name any other reasonable tribunal it will be acceptable to me, but I want the matter settled now.


Martin Burrell: I would suggest to the hon.
member that the other ministers and myself see him and arrange for some official, satisfactory to him, to deal with this matter.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Somebody satisfactory to me?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I will be perfectly
satisfied. That settles it then.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the
- pleasure of the House that the hon. member be allowed to withdraw his motion?
Motion withdrawn.


QUEBEC'S ANCIENT FORTIFICATIONS.
Mr. CHARLES GAVAN POWER (Quebec South) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the ancient walls and fortifications of the city of Quebec, having for all military purposes become abso-lete, it is expedient in order to better preserve these valuable heirlooms as a historical monument for future generations, that their upkeep and control be now vested in the National Battlefields Commission.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the subject which I wish to bring up for discussion to-day has been on the Order Paper for quite a long time. It is a proposal that the walls and fortifications of the city of Quebec be now taken from the control of the Militia Department and placed in an independent commission. I am pleased indeed to see the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Hugh Guthrie) in his seat, and before I go any further I wish to tell him that this scheme has had the approval of his predecessor and also of Sir Sam Hughes, former Minister of Militia.
The walls and fortifications have become absolutely obsolete and useless for warlike purposes. They could not withstand a five minute bombardment by modem artillery. They would be, I imagine, more a source of danger than defence to those who manned them.
Hitherto their control and upkeep has been vested in the Department of Militia and Defence. This department, very wisely I imagine, is not too wasteful of the public moneys, and does not wish to expend money for the defence of Canada where such expenditure would be useless. Therefore I propose to rid the department of what to-day must be very much of an incumbrance.
By 7-8 Edward VII, Chap. 57, there has been created a body called " The National Battlefields Commission." This commission

was constituted because, according to the preamble of the Statute:
It is desirable in the public interest of Canada to acquire and preserve the great historic battlefields at Quebec, restoring so far as possible their principal features,
To this Commission the Federal and Provincial Governments have at various times voted considerable sums, and societies and private individuals have generously contributed. I may say in passing that that Commission has performed splendid work in Quebec, as anybody who has been there recently may see. We have a splendid Battlefields Park on the Plains of Abraham, where formerly a wilderness existed.
Now, I propose, subject of course to any considerations of military necessity, that these fortifications be taken over by this Battlefields Commission. It is not my desire to hasten the (Government into adopting any scheme that may be impossible or impracticable, and I quite understand that there may be reasons of State to prevent their taking the action I suggest; for instance, the Imperial authorities in handing over the citadel and fortifications to the Canadian Government may have placed some restrictions upon their use, but of that I have no knowledge. I simply wish to ask that serious consideration be given to this subject, feeling assured that the public service will be benefited and its efficiency increased without putting one cent more cost on the public funds.
I have already stated that the value of these fortifications for practical purposes is useless. We must not forget, however, that there attaches to them a very great sentimental value in the hearts of all Canadians.
It has been shown in the history of the past as well as in recent history that, while nations may be ruled by politicians and statesmen, they are never aroused to action; they are never impelled to the doing of good deeds, until their hearts are touched and their sentiment aroused. I imagine, therefore, that in forwarding such a movement as this we shall be helping our fellow citizens and the growing generation to appreciate the better their responsibilities as Canadians. A study of the deeds of our ancestors; a contemplation of the difficulties which they underwent; a perusal of our history, will bring to our people and to the growing generation a love of country which will better fit us to assume our national status.
The history of these walls is truly remarkable-remarkable from the standpoint of the antiquarian as well as from the standpoint fMr. Power.]
of the historian; an object lesson to all of us; an object lesson to the growing generation-remarkable even from the standpoint of the soldier, because it shows that the art of defensive warfare has made wonderful strides within recent years.
In reviewing this history we may begin with the day when Champlain built at Quebec a rude stockade called "L'Habitation," fit only to repel the attacks of savages armed with bows and arrows, and go on' to the time when they built on the crest of the cliff a castle surrounded by a moat and a wall, called "Chateau St. Louis." Many of you may not know where the Chateau St. Louis was; its site will be more familiar to you when I tell you that it is that of the present Chateau Frontenac.
In the time of the Governor from whom the Chateau Frontenac takes its name, it was decided to enlarge the walls and spread them over a much greater area. This was done partly by the inhabitants themselves, who feared the growing power of the English colonists and their savage allies, and partly under the direction of the French kings, who realized that in Quebec they had the strategic point from which their possessions in New France might be defended. The work, however-like most Government work, I am sorry to say-was placed largely in the hands of contractors, and the contractors of that day resembled very much the contractors of our day. We read that short quantities of earth were delivered; that stones were mixed with sand; that works had to be repaired before they were completed. We read also that a certain amount of ingenuity was exercised in the carrying out of some of the schemes well known to our own modern political camp followers, such as change of plan, extras, and so on. Evidently they knew all these things in the days of Montcalm and Frontenac. However, we read also that in spite of these things, the military governors and engineers such as Frontenac, Montcalm, Denere, Delary, Franquert, Ponteroy and others undoubtedly were honest and did their best under adverse circumstances to make these walls safe against the invader. One thing, though, is certain: Wolfe's artillery men, though not armed with pieces of the heaviest weight even for that day, had no difficulty in effecting large breaches wherever they chose.
During the English regime, Murray when he was besieged by De Levis and later Sir Guy Carleton when he was besieged by continental troops, found that their sole defence against the invaders was the stout

heart of the defenders. We read also that in the letters of the governors of that time innumerable complaints were made to the home office of the insufficiency of the defences and that frequent requests were made for assistants, for men, for engineers, for materials, in order to strengthen the fortifications of that city which was the last bulwark of British dominion on the American continent. No comprehensive scheme, however, was entered into until 1823, when the walls were built which enclose approximately their present area. Later still, between 18601870 the experience of modern warfare having shown that the only means of defence for a city was to he found in separate and detached posts situated at some distance,- forts were constructed at Levis in a position commanding the river St. Lawrence. These forts have, I understand, proved to be of some utility during the recent war, and it is not my intention to ask that they be included in the plan which [DOT]I propose
It is not, however, so much the history of these bare walls and these crumbling stones to which I wish to direct the attention of the House to-day. I wish to emphasize the associations connected _ with them; to deal with a subject which certainly does not enter into the realm of practical politics and in connection with which there can certainly be nothing in the way of vituperation or recrimination. I hope that the House will bear with me for a few moments while I recall some of the events connected with these walls, and refer briefly to some of the men whose names are associated with them.
From the day in 1535 when Jacques Cartier, with a few scurvy-inflicted followers, entered the St. Charles river and wintered beside the Indian village of Stada-cona, down to the day when the mightiest Armada which had ever crossed the Atlantic, sailed up the St. Lawrence, bearing thirty-three thousand men who with their comrades were in four years to make known the word "Canada" in regions and to populations where hitherto it was considered almost as mythical as the fabled Atlantis; whose deeds stand out pre-eminent even in a war of giants; whose heroism has attracted the attention and praise of the nations of the earth through nearly four centuries-Quebec has been the spot on this hemisphere where history was made, where heroes lived and died, where a continent was lost and won. It was here that Champlain, a soldier, sailor and statesman,
first established a home and planted the Cross which was to bring to a continent the blessings of Christianity and civilization. From Quebec he set forth on those perilous journeys into unknown regions amongst unfriendly barbarous tribes which led to the discovery of the Ottawa river and the Great Lakes. Later he was succeeded by others of the same daring breed. Talon, Laval, Frontenac, al'l made their headquarters within these walls. Statesman and colonist, priest and educator, soldier and governor-all left on the colony the glamour of their personality and enriched our history by the shining examples which they have left to posterity. Talon, with the clear vision of genius, saw that a country hitherto popularly supposed to be useful only as an abode for criminals, adventurers and younger sons, or to be given over to the avaricious rapacity of the fur traders, could be made the home of a peaceful, happy populace, devoted to industry and the cultivation of the soil.
Laval, priest, founder and colonist, by a system of education, rendered this country at least to a certain extent independent of old France in arts, science, culture. By his firm insistence on the rights and privileges of the clergy, by his struggle on behalf of morality and. decency, he raised to a higher plane the standards of living which here as elsewhere had been lowered by the licentiousness and debaucheries of some of the wilder spirits. He instilled into the people of French Canada that love of authority, that God-fearing simplicity, and sense of moral responsibility which are the characteristics of the people of the province of Quebec to-day.
A little later Frontenac arrived, during the darkest hour of the colony. He subdued the Iroquois, terrorized the colonial settlements into an honourable truce and answered the imperious ultimatum of a British admiral anchored before the walls of Quebec by a haughty and successful reply from the mouth of his cannon. He put an end for a century to come to the menace of a British invasion of Quebec. Then later came priests and missionaries, the Recollects and Jesuits, trappers and explorers. They lived and struggled and died within the shadow of these mouldering walls. Time after time the Jesuits, unaccustomed to anything tout the best living in Europe, went out into uncharted country, faced death in a thousand horrible forms, and suffered martyrdom in order to bring to a new country the blessings of civilization. We must all recognize the courage of

the "coureur de bois," those hardy people who explored the Mississippi and were the first to discover our great West. Hon. members from the West should he glad to join with me in helping to reverence and perpetuate their memory by preventing the walls from which they started from falling into decay. Then came soldiers from Guinne and Picardy, descendants of whom are sitting around me in this Chamber today. These men must have viewed with gloomy foreboding the vast forests which lay before them. Little did they think that within a few centuries the trees whose shadows filled them with such a sombre feelmg would be utilized to make fortunes for thousands of people.
Later on, from his lookout perched high above Cape Diamond, Montcalm must have looked very sorrowfully down the St. Law renee at the mighty fleet containing the greatest force yet sent against the colony. He must have felt approaching the climax of the long struggle on the American continent between Briton and Gaul. Time does not permit me to dwell upon the trials and triumphs of the gallant Wolfe, nor upon the great battle of the Plains of Abraham, which so effectually decided the question of supremacy in Canada. Suffice it to say that the troops engaged were worthy foes, the reckless gallantry of France being matched by the calm courage and stubbornness of Britain. The prize, too, was worthy of the contest-the capture of the gateway to the northern portion of the American continent. The combat* was so fierce, even compared with modern warfare, that four brigadiers on one side and three on the other were either killed in action or died of wounds, and both officers commanding were mortally wounded whilst gallantly leading their men to the attack. So closely are the names of these two heroes associated, one over-shadowed in his last moments by defeat, and the other dying at the moment of victory, that a single monument has been erected to commemorate their glorious struggle.
The city was to be besieged again. The following year De Levis, having avenged France in a battle fought on almost the same grounds as the struggle of the previous year, sat down to starve Governor Murray and a few troops into submission. The garrison suffered incredible hardships throughout the winter, but with the spring came the eagerly awaited British fleet, and the British flag was seen unfurled to the breeze. French colonial policy then collapsed and England became possessor of the 
vast territories which now constitute the brightest gem in the diadem of the Empire.
Quebec was besieged once more in 1775. Continental forces had overrun the whole of Canada, till only Quebec City still remained free from the heel of the invader. Sir Guy Carleton, by his energy and ability, so stirred the inhabitants, bath English and French, that the city was put into such a state of defence that it withstood almost daily attacks from the forces of Arnold and Montgomery, till in the closing hours of 1775 the final assault was beaten off, and the bravest of the surviving Americans gave up his life attempting in vain to scale the cliffs.
Since that time, though the streets and squares have constantly echoed with the tramp of armed men, though the surrounding hills every day resound with the roar of artillery, no enemy has come within sufficient distance to give cause for alarm.
In another field, however, Quebec continued to be of the greatest importance to the Dominion. Here was staged the earliest debates on responsible government. Here was established for all time equal rights for the victor and vanquished in the matter of language and religion. Here sat the first Parliament of United Canada, and here, in 1864, were laid the foundation stones of our present Confederation.
In conclusion, let us remember that the facts which I have set forth are a large part of the history of all Canadians, no matter what their country of origin may be. The men whose deeds I have recalled are our common ancestors, and the newest Canadian as well as the descendant of fifty generations here, if he be proud of his country at all, should claim them and glory in their achievements and try to emulate them. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that no more befitting legislation could be adopted in the year of the opening of this magnificent new Parliament Building, which is a symbol of the growth into a mighty nation of the few provinces for whom these ancestors of ours laboured, fought and died, than to save from decay these crumbling walls in old Quebec, these mouldering stones, which witnessed their efforts on our common behalf.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, the motion which my hon. friend from South Quebec (Mr. Power) has just made brings to my attention for the first time this important question regarding the walls and fortifications of the ancient city of Quebec. When I first saw the notice on the Order Paper, I made inquiries in the department, but we

could find no record of any application having been made in the direction set out in the motion now before the House.
However, I have heard incidentally that Sir George Garneau, the Chairman of the Battlefields Commission, has asked some members of the Government that these walls and fortifications should be handed over to the Commission, and I may inform the House that at the present time the matter is under consideration by the Government and by the officials of the Department of Militia.
I must commend my hon. friend for the excellent manner in which he has brought this matter to the attention of the House in the motion which he has just moved, and also for the graceful, eloquent and charming recital which he has given to us of the history of the early days of this great country. I think many of us are far too prone to consider that the history of our common country begins about the year 1759, and far too many of us are either not informed, or else we forget that Canada has in reality a great history, an honourable history; a history adorned with all the colours of romance. From the year 1535, for nearly four centuries, perhaps the principle historic point of the whole country has been in and about the city of Quebec; and certainly not the least point of historic interest in that city, perhaps one of the most interesting of all, consists in the walls and the fortifications which originally were looked upon as an unconquerable stronghold, but which to-day under the conditions of modern warfare, would not be considered the slightest military importance. These fortifications, as I understand, came into possession of the Government of Canada under some express arrangements with the Imperial Government; but so far as my information goes, I do not think that there were any limitations whatever in the deed of gift or grant which would place any impediment in the way of the proposal to hand over these memorials to the Battlefields Commission. From the knowledge I possess of the matter-and I frankly admit that I am not very conversant with its details-I believe that the walls and fortifications are not now used for any military purpose and are not likely to be restored for such purpose by this or succeeding generations. The citadel itself is used for military purposes and troops are quartered there. The parade grounds are of course used, but the walls themselves and the fortifications connected therewith will not, I think, ever again be
of any practical use to the Government or the Department of Militia. During past years, I understand, some expenditure has been made in the work of restoration, both by the Department of Militia and Defence and by the Department of Public Works. Just what that expenditure amounts to I am not at the present moment able to state, but I know that within the last three months instructions have been issued to have a survey and report made of the whole situation in connection with these walls and fortifications; and I think that in the near future some scheme will be developed and a plan devised whereby conferences will be held between officials of the department and the Battlefields Memorial Commission in order that satisfactory arrangements may be made for the handing over of these walls and fortifications to that commission. Plans have not yet been fully developed in that respect; they are still under consideration by the department and the Government. Personally, I think there should be no hesitation in carrying out the plan suggested in this motion. I am very glad indeed that my hon. friend in moving the motion stated that he did not intend to press it at the present time but brought it forward to-day with the idea of presenting the matter directly to the attention of the Government and of this House. He has done more than that. He has put upon the pages of Hansard a charming address-


Mr.   BTJREAD@: Hear, hear


Hugh Guthrie: -which T have no
doubt will be very widely read in the schools and colleges of this country. He has given us a resume of Canadian history which will be of great value, and ho has clothed it in most charming language, simple and easy to understand. I think, therefore, he is entitled to the thanks as well as the congratulations of the House for the manner in which he has submitted his motion to day; and in adopting his suggestion to let the motion drop, I may assure him that the matter will be given the best of consideration of the Government.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE (Simcoe North):: I
have no desire to prolong the debate on this motion, but I wish to correct a wrong impression that seems to have possessed the House in regard to this matter. I have had some experience in going over fortifications, and I know how those of Quebec compare with other fortifications of similar character. The city of Ypres held out throughout the war. After the British took possession of its fortifications, it was never taken by the

whole force of the German army united against it on several occasions, the British army having found refuge in the casemates and the old crumbling walls of the city of Ypres. Now, the walls of Ypres were just as decrepit, and were in the same condition when the war broke out between Belgium and Germany, as are the walls of the city of Quebec at the present time. The city of Ypres was taken possession of by the army and the casemates were utilized, and other works of a temporary character were built with the walls, with the result that Ypres became impregnable. And had it not been for the manner in which that city was held there is no. doubt that the war would have ended in another way. The fortifications of Quebec as they stand to-day are far stronger and in a much better state of repair than were the fortifications of Ypres, and I have no hesitation in saying, as one who has seen the effect of war on the operation of fortifications of this kind, that any general who has had experience in defending fortresses in Europe would say that the form of the fortress of Quebec would lend itself to a defence that would be impregnable in any war that might occur in this country. Let us not make the mistake that these walls in Quebec are crumbled, ancient, and of no value. Behind them are rooms where men can go in casemates, which are far stronger and better than those in the city of Ypres. Th citadel of Quebec is impregnable under modern conditions. It is all very well to say that it could be blown up by artillery fire. Artillery might have some effect upon it-there is no doubt that it would have an effect upon it-but as to blowing it up or putting it out of business as a military stronghold, it cannot be done. For that reason the Government would be ill-advised to withdraw the garrison from the citadel and to remove the Quebec fortifications. The nature of the city, and of the fortifications of Quebec assure the protection of the St. Lawrence with the guns we have now. With some of those great howitzers which we have seen in Ottawa no enemy could come up the St. Lawrence beyond a point twenty miles from the city of Quebec. Before the war it was a common saying that the Canadian army was insignificant. People used to sneer at our soldiers and at the fortifications and armament of Quebec. In spite of all that, when the real, acid test of the war came the Canadian soldier was found to be just as good as any other soldier in the world and as far as the First Division was concerned its guns and its armament filled a gap in the life of the war but for which I 
doubt whether history would have been written in the way it is to-day.
Nobody knows what a day may bring forth. We even now have nations rattling the sword at Canada and trying to give us a little taste of their frightfulness. We may have trouble and we must be prepared for the next five or ten years to take our place in the ranks with our British brethren in case trouble comes to Canada or to the Empire. For that reason, instead of tearing down the fortifications of Quebec and w'ith-dkayring entirely the garrison from the city, we should maintain the fortifications in good order and keep the garrison there. The garrisoning of the city is so important to the protection of the St. Lawrence that I would strongly urge upon the Government to have a commission of Imperial engineers, men, who have had experience of fortifications during the war, to go over the works and see what can be done with them. Walls of a poorer character in the city of Ypres withstood the full force of the greatest German guns and offered refuge for the British soldiers throughout the war. The riding school in Ypres, which was built with great underground places as refuges fop soldiers, two hundred or three hundred years ago, served as a refuge for British soldiers during the war. The ancient engineers who built these walls and the men who built fortresses of the same character as that at Quebec understood their business very well and the modern engineer has not been able to improve very much upon their work. They knew liow to build fortifications. There are old text books on fortifications which were used in the time of Marlborough and their teachings are still good to-day.
Amongst other nations the fortress at Quebec is looked upon as one of the great fortresses of the British Empire and it would be a mistake if the impression were to go forth that Canada was about to dismantle a fortress which is impregnable. At Halifax another great fortress stands overlooking the Atlantic ocean. For the purposes of war and defence the fortifications at Quebec are just as modern as any fortifications that could be designed to-day. All you would have to add would be outworks in the form of earthwork which could be done at any time in -a day or two. I hope the impression will not go abroad, or that the Minister of Militia will not gain the impression, from the remarks which have fallen -from the hon. member for Quebec city (Mr. Power), that the fortress at Quebec is useless, because there is no

better design to-day in so far as the citadel is concerned than that to be found at Quebec. Passages and galleries might be added underground but otherwise the works are perfect. The great engineers who designed that fortress knew how to construct * work of that character and the fortress is just as modem to-day as the bayonet is still a useful weapon.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the hon. member for Quebec South rises to speak I must remind hon. members that he is exercising his right to close the debate and if any other member desires to speak he should do so now.


Charles Gavan Power: A word only in answer to my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie.) I make no pretention of being a military authority as he is and therefore I do not intend to discuss with him the question as to whether or not these works are useless in time of war. All I can tell him is that that seems to have been the impression of the Militia Department.-


John Allister Currie: None of them have gone to war.


Charles Gavan Power: Nor is it the impression of one who is not a member of the Militia Department and who has gone to war. I wish to tell the hon. member that I put in a year at Ypres and I never saw a casemate or a wall there-I was in the trenches.


John Allister Currie: You could not have been in the hospital at the Menin Gate if you did not see one.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall close the debate and not enter into any recriminations. I shall withdraw the resolution on the assurance of the minister that this matter is receiving the attention of the Government and that an investigation of the whole ques-ion will be made. That will no doubt be satisfactory even to the hon. member for North Simcoe.
Motion withdrawn.


THE PENSION ACT-WIDOWED MOTHERS.
Charles Gavan Power: That, In the opinion ot this House, it is expedient to amend the Act to provide Pensions to or in respect ot Members of the Canadian Naval and Military Air Forces, 1919, so as to provide that the pension of a widowed mother of a Member of the Forces who has died on active service shall not be reduced on account of her income ; and further that Pension shall he granted her of right whether or not there are other living children.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a long way from the musty walls of the Quebec fortifications and the heroes of ancient Canadian history to the heroes of our own day and their dependents. I doubt whether I would have undertaken the task of discussing this matter had I not seen in his seat my hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn) who has always been very much interested in it from the same standpoint as I have been. Section 34, if I remember rightly, of the new Pensions Act allows, a pension to the dependent widowed mother of a soldier killed in action. If she is not in receipt of any income the full amount of the pension is granted to her. Previously to last year should she have been in receipt of any earnings whatsoever the amount of these earnings were deducted from her total pension. To give you a concrete example: "Supposing a widowed mother is entitled to a pension of $600 a year, and that, as a washerwoman in one of the departments she earned $300 a year. Well, this was deducted from her pension; the Government paid her only $300. This obvious injustice was remedied last year in the Pension Act of 1919, but there still remains another injustice:	We
have deliberately excluded from the provisions of this amendment the widowed mother who is in receipt of an income of any kind-an income in stocks, bonds, pensions, insurance, et cetera-and we have left this matter entirely to the discretion of the Board of Pension Commissioners in cases of what they call extreme hardship. Now what I maintain is this: The widowed mother, whoever she may be, is as much entitled to the pension of right as the wife; that in many cases, in a large number of cases in fact, the mother is more entitled to a pension than the wife. The wife in a good number of cases may marry again, whereas the widowed mother is very often past that age-past the age where she may earn a living to augment her pension, and in such a position that she practically becomes an object of public charity. So that it is my contention that the widowed mother of a soldier should be allowed to obtain the same amount of pension whether she has or has not any income. We have heard in this House-I do not wish to revive old controversies because too much was heard of the matter last year-arguments with regard to the unmarried wife and respecting, as my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council would say "the wife by habit and repute." That I think was the last phrase we arrived at during the debate in question.

I do not wish to again revive the question of the wife "by habit and repute" but I imagine that the widowed mother of a soldier is more entitled to a tpension than this wife by habit and repute. Let me cite a concrete case which I brought up in the House on a previous occasion, namely, the case of a young man, a barrister, who went away to the war as a private soldier, his people being well-to-do. During the war his father died leaving his mother not quite well off. Meanwhile the boy had attained the rank of Captain. He was killed and the widowed mother was granted a sum of $66 per month. About a year, or perhaps two years, after she had been in the enjoyment of this pension, what is termed " a visiting officer" called upon her and inquired whether she was being well treated. The lady was thankful for the $66 per month and told the visitor that everything was quite satisfactory, and that the Government had treated her very well. Then the lady visitor inquired "Have you any other resources?" " Oh, yes, I have a house in the country and I get $300 a year from that." " I see, $300." Deduct that from $800 and it leaves $500.	" Have you got anything
else?" " Yes, I draw $100 a year from insurance." Take that off also, making a total deduction of $400. This lady is left with $400 from the Government and her only son, that was her support and but for the war would now be earning a good income, has given up his life at the front. The age of this lady is such that she is utterly incapable of earning her living, and is practically left on the country. I maintain, sir, that in justice and fairness the widowed mother should be placed in the same position as the wife and no deduction of income should be made whatsoever. If the son has died at the front the widowed mother should get a pension just as when the husband dies at the front the wife gets a pension. We have debated this question before the Committee on Pensions and on two or three occasions we almost carried the point. We have not succeeded so far, and therefore I have deemed it my duty to bring the matter before the attention of the House.


Mr. HUME CRONYN (London):: As the mover of the resolution has stated I have been much interested in this question, and he and I throughout the consideration of the Pension Bill fought strongly for more favourable treatment to widowed mothers. Wo were unfortunately in a minority in the Pension Committee, and when we renewed our struggle in the House an amendment

was suggested to the Pension Act which I, at least, thought would have given relief. That amendment was dropped at the request of the minister in charge of the Bill. H my memory serves me right it was declare-:1 not to be in order for a private member f[. propose a resolution which involved the expenditure of public money; but there was another reason for delaying the amendment; it was hoped to get some information from the Pensions Board which would tell us just how much the proposed ' change would involve in the way of expenditure. From that time to this I have not heard whether that information was forthcoming, and as I did not know until this afternoon that the resolution was to be discussed I am not very well prepared to speak on the several points in issue. However, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Power) has explained, the widowed mother who is in receipt of an independent income from any source has deducted from her pension, which she would otherwise be entitled to, the amount of that income, and this, as he says, works very great hardship in certain cases.
On a former occasion I mentioned a concrete case of the sort where the widow of a clergyman, entitled to an annuity of $300, had for some time received a pension of $480 because of the death of her son at the front. Later on, under the regulations embodied in the Act, that $300 of annuity was deducted, and she received only $180 by way of pension. Other hon. members have similar cases arising in their own constituencies and these were also set out. Objection was raised that this was, in a manner, class legislation-that a widowed mother might be in receipt of so large an income that it would be absurd to further augment her living allowance. But that is easily guarded against if the amendment suggested were to be adopted. We could easily provide that if a widowed mother received a larger sum than her entire pension she would only be entitled to a certain amount. But even if it is class legislation I appeal to you, Sir, and to the House, that of all people in the world mothers should be entitled to a preference.
The mover of the resolution has made mention of the discussion with regard to unmarried wives. I know I was struck at that time by the objection made to the phraseology, which we of a somewhat coldblooded race saw at first no reason against adopting. The objection was all the more curious too, because in the English language we have one word for wife and another for

woman, whereas my friends from Quebec use but the one word femme to denominate either a woman or a wife.
Now, I venture to appeal to both sides of this House on behalf of an even more sacred person than the wife-I appeal on behalf of the mother. For that reason alone I would urge, without going further into the matter, favourable consideration of the resolution moved by the member for Quebec (Mr. Power).


Mr. DANIEL LEE REDMAN (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I am heartily in accord with the resolution which has been moved by the member for Quebec (Mr. Power). As hon. members who have spoken on the resolution have said, this matter has been discussed by the Pensions Committee for the last two years. Last year we made a move along this line; that is, we said that when the mother earned any money by work it should not be deducted from her pension. This resolution goes one step further and asks us to state that if she has a private income it shall not be deducted from her pension. But all mothers are not included; the privilege is asked only for widowed mothers.
I am sure that nothing in connection with the Pension administration creates more difficulties, more misunderstandings and in many cases a feeling of greater injustice than the existing rule. As has been pointed out, it is necessary that in each case an investigator should make minute inquiries as to the properties or moneys which these ladies-usually aged-have, and often the investigators do not get the facts right, and in scarcely any case are they able to impress upon the people to whom they go the difference between them and some other widowed mother who perhaps lives in the same community. Consequently the impression is created that we aie rather small, that the shades of difference we draw are perhaps what might be termed picayune. If it is a matter of money, one might point out that most of these widowed mothers are advanced in years, and the pensions will continue only during the remainder of their lives.
Last year the Great War Veterans and others came to us and asked for a gratuity for able-bodied soldiers. Our general answer was:	"No, we do not believe in
the principle of giving money to able-bodied men, because what money we intend to spend we wish to reserve for the dependents of soldiers." Now, I do not think there is any class more deserving than the widowed
mother. We are only asking that she get the same consideration as the widow of the soldier, and we are limiting it to the widowed mother. Having regard to the attitude which we took last year, to the present rules which are not entirely satisfactory, and to the arguments which have been advanced by hon. members, and also to my study of the matter and my knowledge of it gained by contact with these people during the last few years, I have no hesitation in recommending this reform which in justice to the class concerned we cannot longer delay.


Mr. ARTHUR BLISS COPP (Westmorland) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate
myself with my hon. friend the mover of this resolution and with those hon-. members who have supported it. I had not the privilege of being present at the meetings of the Committee that spent so much time in discussing and studying this question of pensions, but I have had some experience of it in connection with requests that have been made to me on behalf of widowed mothers, which requests I have taken up with the Pensions Department.
One of the strongest cases brought to my notice was that of a woman who had two sons overseas. Her husband was sick, and on one of her sons being killed in action a pension was given to the family. Finally the husband died, and after some investigation the pension was withdrawn from the widowed mother, on the ground that she had another son who was morally bound to support her-although he did not do so. If that is the proper ruling under the Pension Act, Mr. Speaker, I submit it ought to be changed so that the widowed mother may not have to depend upon charity, but may have that support by way of pension which her sacrifice richly entitles her to.


Mr. WILLIAM FOSTER COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I have very
strong opinions in regard to the subject matter of this resolution. I was not one of the committee that dealt with pensions, although I appeared before them on two or three occasions pressing for more liberality of treatment. Coming from a city that furnished between 5,000 and 6,000 men to the overseas forces, I feel that I have a good deal of experience in dealing with the classes that come within the scope of this resolution. I have had similar cases to the one just mentioned by the member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) and some, I think, even stronger than that, and my heart has been pained and I have been actually almost

forced to tears listening to the widows' tales of their struggles to keep their families going. I do not know whether my letters will ever see the light of day, but during the last two or three years I have written the very strongest letters I am capable of to the Pension Commissioners, pointing out the cases of gross injustice which have been brought to my attention. Whether the treatment of such cases is in accordance with the regulations or not, I do not think that we as a country can afford to allow it to exist as undoubtedly it does exist at the present time. It continues after this committee dealt with it so exhaustively last year. Within the last few weeks I have had one or two cases brought before me, and I am going to give one, Mr. Speaker, in order that you may see how the Act works.
I cite the case of a widow who at the beginning of the war had a husband and two sons. The eldest son enlisted first and served almost throughout the war:	He was practically the
mainstay of the family before he went away and would have been so on his return. He served for upwards of four years, but in the closing days of the war he was killed. The second son went over later, and was severely wounded, his leg being shattered from the knee down. After both sons had gone the husband came home from a recruiting meeting and said to his wife: " There is still an appeal for men; they are wanted at the front; I feel that it is my duty to go." Though upwards of fifty years of age he volunteered for service and was accepted. On account of some trouble with his feet he never got overseas but he did serve at the Niagara frontier for a year or two. During that service he became inflicted with a trouble which, though not originating during service, was aggravated to such an extent that he had to be discharged and shortly afterwards died. Up to the present time that man's widow has received no pension. She lost her husband in the service or as a result of the service; her eldest son was killed at the front after more than four years of the most strenuous fighting, and the third boy, who had his leg shattered, came home and was able to qualify as a telegraph operator at a very good remuneration, I admit,

$90 a month. Well, this is what the Pension Board gave him; in respect of that permanent injury to a limb he is getting $4 a month by way of pension, the limitation of amount being on the ground that he was able to earn $90 a month as telegraph operator. The Pension Board also told him to hand over
1 M r. Coclcshuttl
to his widowed mother $10 a month to help her to live. Now, I have in black and white from the Pension Board what is virtually an admission of these facts; and I say that my blood boils to think that this country can do no better for a widow than that. I know the facts in this case; I have submitted them to the Pension Board just as strongly as I am submitting them now, but I have failed to get any redress for that widow. She told me with tears in her eyes that she could not support her remaining children and herself under these conditions. The young man whose limb has been shattered is engaged to be married, and the final intimation I got from the Pension Board was that if the young man would get married they would consider the widow's case on its merits and that probably she would get some pension. I know of other cases of the same kind; if one son is left at home, the widow cannot get a pension. This country owes a duty to that widow who gave her husband and her sons in the great conflict; she should not be treated on a charitable basis. I understand that the widow of whom I speak has two other children at home. One of them is a boy of fifteen-he is not strong and may be in poor health for at least a number of years-the other is a boy of seven. This is not an isolated case; cases of this kind, I believe, are fairly common throughout the country. I know of another case where four sons out of five sustained casualties out of the war, two being killed and two wounded and because the widow had one son left she was told that there was no pension coming to her. I know of another case, a widow who is able to work in a bank. She has moved from Brantford to New Brunswick and is now in the constituency of the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. H. P. McLeod). He and I have done all we could during a period of two or three years to get the case of this widow considered by the Pension Board, but because she is able to earn something by working in the bank she has not been given a pension. The Pension Board evidently arrived at this decision by deducting the amount she earns from the amount to which she would otherwise be entitled by way of pension. This business of reducing the pension by this amount and by that until it is whittled down to nothing is carried on to such an extent that I really wonder why, on that basis and according to their argument, the Pension Board did not actually find the widow to be in debt to the country. In my judgment the -whole thing has been

carried on from the wrong point of view. When a family have sacrificed husband, father or son, they have placed this country under an obligation, and that obligation is to see that want does not enter the house in which that family lives. It does not matter whether or not there is a prospect of help coming later. It is not fair to say that the members of a family must always stay in their old home until the parent is dead. I know three or four cases of young men who are engaged but who are obliged to stay at home practically as long as the mother lives. They dare not get married on the strength of the supposition that the Government will do the right thing, because they are afraid ' that the Government are not going to do the right thing in regard to pension. While we have treated our soldiers with the utmost liber-dity :n Connection with practically every service which they have rendered, when it comes to the matter of pension there is, for some reason, a kink in the system; they are not treated in a humane manner. I have had long experience in connection with pensions and have dealt with a very large variety of cases; and I can say that the Pension Board are either tied up by red tape or by regulations.
I have another grievance against the Pension Board in the way the pensions are administered. After a member has struggled hard-and it is a hard struggle to get anything like justice done by the Pension Board-I say, after a member has struggled hard, and has finally obtained a fairly satisfactory settlement for a widow, it may happen that the payments go on for three cr six months and then you are suddenly wakened up with a jolt to find that the same thing has been undone. I have had that occur time and again. Now, in my judgment, after a thorough investigation has been made and a pension supposedly decided upon as final, it should not be open to the Pension Board to go back on the arrangement that has been made and to throw the whole thing into the air again as has been done time and again. I could mention names, but I do not think it is wise; I do not want to drag them into the publicity that the mention of them would give. But I know of cases where twice over a pension has been cut down, without any apparent reason, after having been, to all intents and purposes, finally settled and arranged between the Pension Board and the family on the basis of a thorough investigation. I say that this country is well enough off, badly as
it has been hit by the war, to take care of all those who should receive pensions, The department, or whoever is responsible should limber up considerably, and not simply consider to what extent the Pension Bill for the year would be raised by appropriate action, but whether justice is being done to the individals and families they are dealing with. If it is found that justice is not being done and that the families have not enough to live on, I contend that it is the duty of this Government to set that matter right. The question my hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn) has raised is one that has often tripped me up when I have been trying to get pension cases settled. It will suddenly be discovered by the board or by some visitor who is mighty inquisitive, that the pensioner has a little income from somewhere, it does not matter where, and the pension is at once cut down by that amount.
I had one case recently where the board discovered that a widow, living in Brantford, who had been receiving a pension, I think, of $600 a year, owned two houses in Toronto. The rent of one house was $12 a month, and of the other approximately the same-about $25 a month from the two. When this fact was discovered by some inquisitive visitor, would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, the board deducted the whole amount pf the rent from the $600 pension which the widow had been receiving for some little time, without making any allowance whatever for repairs, insurance, or even taxes. The whole rental from the two houses was deducted from the original pension, and I had to put up a considerable fight, which I did, before I got this injustice remedied. While the pension was not restored to its original amount, I did succeed in showing the board that it was not very business-like to assume, because a certain amount of rental is supposed to come in from a house, that it always does come in. Every hon. member knows that even if it does come in, there are a lot of other things to be considered, such as repairs, taxes and insurance, and the house may be empty for two or three or even six months. But simply because a widow has a house that is supposed to bring in a rental of $12 a month, the policy of the board is to deduct that amount as if she had the rental already in her pocket. The thing is absurd from a business standpoint, because rent for a house is not in your pocket until the cheque has been honoured by the bank, and then there are these deductions I have spoken of.

I hope this question will come up again. I do not think this will be the finish of it. I do not know whether the hon. member for South Quebec (Mr. Power) thinks it will be the finish of it if we pass this resolution. What we want is action. In spite of what was done by the committee last year I cannot take back anything I have said. I tried then to speak as strongly as words would permit in favour of proper treatment for the soldier and his dependents. Whether all the committee's recommendations are in full operation or not, I do not know, but I have certainly had some very severe cases since the regulations wrere put into effect last year. I have mentioned one case, and I could give others. In my judgment it is a shame that widows with dependent children who have lost a husband, or son, or brother in the war, who was their chief support, cannot have their cases treated in a reasonable way.
Furthermore, under the present regulations the woman who tries to help herself is penalized. The Government practically says that she should not have any income from any other source, and that if she has, they will deduct that amount from her pension. I say the country either owes these women a debt or it does not, and it is most unjust to make these deductions simply because a widow may have $200 or $300 or $500 coming in from a piece of property, to acquire which she has had to scrape for years. The pensions are much too small at the best, and are miserable at the worst. I am ashamed to mention the $3 or $4 pension. I have mentioned the case of a boy permanently disabled who receives a pension of only $4 a month. I say that if this Government cannot give a better pension than that to one who is permanently lame, it should not give anything. I would be ashamed to dole out such a small amount. I contend that this matter should be gone into thoroughly, and that every case of injustice should be considered on its merits by some competent authority. I know that there are some who will try to get out of the department more than they are entitled to receive, but don't let us think everybody is a robber; don't let us do an injustice to an innocent person because somebody else is trying to get a few dollars more than they should have. I am confident that the pensions that are being paid to the disabled soldier, to the widow and orphans, or whoever it may be that has suffered, will none of them be found to be over-generous, and a great many of them will be found to be entirely

inadequate. At the risk of raising our pension bill five or ten millions per annum, I say this country owes it to itself and to its citizens to see that a grave injustice is not done to the widow and the orphan. I speak strongly because I feel strongly. I have been almost moved to tears in my office time and again by the relation of the facts alone, and I have felt that I ought to put my hand in my pocket and pay the pensions myself rather than let the poor widow go out of my office as she has had to go. I urge the House as strongly as I can to take active and adequate steps this session to see that the injustices I have spoken of do not continue any longeer.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with other hon. members in supporting the resolution moved by the hon. member for South Quebec (Mr. Power). I have had a number of cases in my county and town of the nature described by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp). The widowed mother of a soldier who has given his life for Canada and the Empire should be entitled to receive her full pension, no matter what her circumstances may be at any time. I have had a case where a pension was refused to a widow because she had a son who had reached the age of eighteen. He had never been able to earn a living for himself, because he was not physically strong enough to do hard work, and did not have the education to do other than manual work. In another case, a widowed mother was refused a pension because she had a son living in the United States or in some distant part of Canada who had been away from home for years and years and was unwilling to assist in supporting her. I also know' of cases where a certain amount of the pension has been deducted because there have been other sources of income. One widowed mother had been receiving a pension of $60 a month for a year or two-her son had been a captain-and then it was discovered that she was the owner of two or three acres of land from which she got a certain revenue, and her pension was reduced to $30 a month. After consideration* of the circumstances, and as a result of representations made by myself, the commissioners raised the pension to $45. I am convinced that the commissioners themselves are in sympathy with the mothers and dependents of the soldiers, but they are precluded from the exercise of any generosity by reason of the regulations. I therefore join with other

hon. members in urging Parliament at this session to take such action as will effectively remedy the present unsatisfactory condition of affairs and give to the widowed mothers of the soldiers adequate consideration. There are very few wealthy women among the Canadian widowed mothers of soldiers, and we could not, I should imagine, be much worse off if we spent a substantial sum of money in granting them proper relief than we should be if the war had been lost. Let Canada show her generosity to those who made the supreme sacrifice, not only for her own safety but for the freedom of men the world over and for the honour of the Empire.


Mr. EDWARD WALTER NESBITT (Oxford North):: I desire to point out to my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) that under the regulations no deduction is made in the case of a woman who is earning money. A man's pension is based strictly on the degree of his incapacity through service to earn a living in the ordinary labour market; and his pension having been once fixed, no deduction is afterwards made by reason of anything which he may earn outside.


William Foster Cockshutt: My hon. friend says that no deduction is made. Well, I can mention a case where nothing was ever granted and therefore nothing could be deducted. The case I mentioned from Fredericton is that of a widow who has now lost her only son, and because she is earning money in a bank her case has not been adjusted or even considered by the Pensions Board.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If she is earning money by her own effort it is not deducted from the pension she is entitled to.


William Foster Cockshutt: But she does not get any.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot help that. So far as the Pensions Board is concerned, my hon. friend from Brantford and others must bear in mind that it is an administrative body. The board is appointed to administer the Act, and if there is anything wrong with the Act itself it is for this House to adjust the irregularity. It is the duty of my hon. friend from Brantford, if a committee is appointed this year, to bring before it the cases he speaks of.


William Foster Cockshutt: I have already appeared twice before the committee.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If he does so, I do not think there is one member of the committee
who will not assist him to have matters adjusted. Let me say, however, that I have never had to write a second letter to the board over any matter whatever after having once told them the exact facts, and having acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Pensions Board cannot vary the Act any more than I, as a private member, can. They have to be bound by the regulations, and I think it is most unfortunate to blame them for doing properly what they consider to be their duty. My experience lia^ been entirely satisfactory with the board, and any question on which I have written them they have endeavoured to attend to in accordance with the regulations laid down in the Act.


Arthur Bliss Copp: You had more influence.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I had no influence whatever.


Mr. GEORGE WILLIAM ANDREWS (Winnipeg Centre):: The present discussion is one of very great importance to widowed mothers. Only last Saturday I received a telegram from an organization which is new to me, the Organized Mothers and Widows, in which they specifically called attention to the matter now under discussion. I do not think that this subject is at all new to any honourable member, for all of us, I have no doubt, have questions of one kind or another brought to our attention in relation to the position of widowed mothers who are in receipt of pensions, or should receive consideration. It was pointed out to me, on investigation, that the little change which I have suggested would cost the country $5,000,000. Hon. members will realize the necessity for the appointment of a committee of some kind to go into these matters. On the Order Paper there will be found a suggestion, which T trust will come before the House on Wednesday, that a committee should be appointed on the subject, which I think it is eminently desirable should be inquired into. I must agree with my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Nesbitt) that the Pension Board is purely administrative, and I have found its members always very fair. But the fact that the matter I have suggested would cost $5,000,000 is, I think, ample evidence of its importance to the hon. members of this House. The pension, as far as I understand the matter, is based on the principle that no widowed mother shall have less than a living if she has lost her support by the war. If there are two women living side by side receiving, say $48 a month, and one is allowed to receive an income of $500, or $600,



or $700 a year, while the other has no opportunity to augment her pension, there might very well arise antagonism to what is commonly called " class legislation." To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the solution of the problem lies in raising the entire pension rate, which at the present time is too low.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I rise to support the motion, as I have risen repeatedly in this House to express my sympathy with the mothers and widows Of men who served their country in the late struggle. I shall not delay the Efouse at this time with any lengthy discussion of the question, because I think that enough has been said. I am convinced that the Government have not closed the door upon any questions appertaining to the returned soldiers, and I think my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) has expressed that determination. I have no doubt the time will come when the Government will appreciate the advisability of affording to this House an opportunity to discuss the subject from all possible standpoints. If, however, they do not grant that opportunity, then we shall bring the matter up in some other manner. I am sure they will give us a chance to go thoroughly into the question, for as I said before, and said advisedly, I rely on this Government to do everything humanly possible on behalf of the soldiers and the widowed mothers. I do not see within sight any other prospective Government that will be willing to do any more than this Government has done or can do. The very first question in regard to the soldiers should be that of pensions. I made this statement in my constituency; that the widows and orphans of the men, our comrades, who were left over on the battlefields of France and Flanders, should be given first consideration. I will not recite the case which I have in mind, but I may assure the House that there are many which should receive eveiy consideration. I think the whole subject could be more advantageously discussed at a later date; and, as I have said before, I am convinced that the Government will grant an opportunity to discuss the question of pensions. We shall therefore await with anxiety their decision on the question, and if they can not grant ample opportunity to go into the matter then I shall take steps to bring it before the House.
Mr. THOMAS W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Caileton):	Assuredly the question
under discussion is one in which every man in this country is deeply interested; and while the motion has reference to pensions

for widowed mothers, perhaps there are others who come within its scope with greater urgency and reason. I have in mind the case of a soldier in my constituency who at the age of 47 enlisted within a week of the outbreak of war. He was overseas two years and was severely gassed, returning home on the ship that took his three sons back to England to serve their country. That man was so anxious to return to civil life that he did not apply for a pension at that time, notwithstanding his severe suffering from the effects of gas. He was one of the old fellows who had considerable sand in him, and he would do a man's work, in spite of every obstacle or hardship which he could possibly surmount. In a very short time, however, his privations at the front told upon him and he had to go under medical treatment. He was sent to a medical hospital in St. John where he developed tuberculosis as the result of the weakening of his lungs from gassing. He was granted a pension of $5.50 a month at first, and after he had been in the hospital six months the doctors pronounced him 100 per cent disabled and he was granted a total disability pension. His case was reconsidered, however, and to-day he is receiving $5.50 a month. He has a family of three small children, one being an invalid, and the mother's time and care are taxed to their utmost. They have a home which they are in imminent danger of losing if they cannot meet the payments on it. This unfortunate man is at present in a military hospital, totally unable to do anything. The doctor has informed him that if he had come to the hospital when he was first discharged there would have been a fair chance of his recovery; but to-day, I regret to say, his condition is such that it is only a question of prolonging life. His pension was cut down on the ground that too long a time had elapsed from the date of his discharge to the time of his being pronounced totally disabled. I must say very emphatically, Mr. Speaker, that it would be an everlasting disgrace to this country if a man who had given such service, and whose family had given such service to their country were not granted an adequate pension to support his family, no matter what might be the cause of his disability. At the last special session of Parliament, I think, there was a sum of $40,000,000 voted for the patriotic purpose of supporting needy soldiers through the winter. In the early part of the winter this family applied for aid, and although

the man's certificate was filled up by two physicians, one who originally attended him, and another, the military doctor appointed in the town in which he lived, both of whom pronounced him 100 per cent disabled, the chairman of the local board refused to sign the necessary papers authorizing the payment of aid to his family. This soldier applied to me and I went to the chairman of the Patriotic Fund Committee and told him that I wanted him to either sign that paper or give me a written statement of his reasons why he would not sign. He said the reason he would not sign was because there were three grown up sons. These sons had been overseas from 1916 until peace was declared when they came home and were demobilized. They are seeking to re-establish themselves and I think you will all agree with me that these men have a right to their own earnings to re-establish themselves after giving three years to the service of their country. The chairman of the Patriotic Fund Committee did sign this paper but he said "I will see that they do not get anything." I do not know what steps he took but I imagine he wrote to the authorities here not to pay the money. These boys are endeavouring to make the payments on their house. Here is this woman, worse than a widow, with three small children, one of them an invalid, getting $5.50 a month and nothing from the Patriotic Fund. I appeal to the members of this House if they think that is the way Canada should discharge her obligations to her soldiers. The man who is killed is out of his misery but this poor man is suffering untold agony and cannot at the best live very long.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Two questions have been brought up this afternoon entirely distinct-one of the law and the other of the administration of the law. The Board of Pension Commissioners are in no way responsible for the law. That was made by this House. It is their duty to administer the law as this Parliament made it. I was glad to hear the remarks of the hon. members for Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon,) the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre (Mr. Andrews) and the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) in appreciation of the work of the Board of Pension Commissioners. No doubt they are fallible as all other men are but they are all men who have served overseas. They are all men who, I am sure, have the deepest sympathy with the returned men and their dependents and I, am sure I am but speaking the truth when 28i
I say that they are exceedingly anxious to administer the law as they understand it in the way which will do justice to those who are entitled to have the benefit of the pension regulations. The Pension Commissioners are a body entirely independent of the Government but I feel that it is due to them in their absence to say 4his much in reference to their work. As to the law, the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is correct in his statement of the position. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) is possibly not aware that last year we changed the law on the point he mentioned. Prior to the amendment of the law last year the earnings of a widow were deducted when the question of her pension came to be decided but the law was changed last year so that the earnings of a widow are no longer taken into account.


William Foster Cockshutt: I mentioned the
specific case that I had taken up myself three or four times where a widow was earning $700 or $800 a year working in a bank. Her case would not be considered so long as she was working in the bank.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Either my hon. friend is misinformed as to the situation or the Board of Pension Commisioners are misinformed. Up to September 1 last year that was the law and the Board of Commissioners were bound to administer it but that has not ibeen the law since the 1st of September and the Board of Pension Commissioners have (been administering the law on the other basis since, because an actual case which they had before them came under my observation-


William Foster Cockshutt: The case to which 1 refer may have been righted within the last two or three months.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It has been lighted since the 1st of September because it was on that date that the law passed, last session came into force. Therefore the point that my hon. friend raises with reference to a widow's earnings is no longer a matter requiring our consideration. Take the other question, the one brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), supported by the hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn) and other members of the House, and which, I am sure, is one that commands the sympathy of every one in the House. We are all deeply interested in the welfare of the widows who have lost their sons and we are all anxious that no injustice shall be done to them. I think however that I should state to the House the position in

which this matter stood last session, particularly in view of the observations of my hon. friend from London. The members of the House will recall that for two sessions-that is in the session of 1918 and the spring session of 1919-we had a committee composed of members from both sides which wept very fully into the question of our pension law. The committee reported its findings to the House and the Government in each case accepted its conclusions -as to what the pension regulations should be in the first case, and as to what the pension law should be in the second.
This particular matter was considered at length by the committee. The hon. member from Quebec (Mr. Power) and the hon. member from London (Mr. Cronyn) pressed their view upon the committee with great force.' A substantial number of the members of the committee sympathized with the view presented, but when it came to a vote the majority was against that view for reasons which perhaps it is not at all necessary to enter into now. It is true that the hon. member for London raised the question on the floor of the House and submitted an amendment differing somewhat from the motion which my hon. friend (Mr. Power) had submitted. The latter, if accepted, would place a widow who might have a fortune of one, two or three hundred thousand dollars in the position to receive a pension just the same as the widow who is left with practically no means of support. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for London was not the same. It recognized a limited income, and in the case of a limited income provided that it should not be taken into account in fixing the pension. I did state to the House when the hon. member proposed his amendment that I would ascertain the facts from the Board of Pension Commissioners as to how much it would cost the country if the amendment were accepted, and if the Government could see its way clear to accept the amendment I might suggest that it be introduced into the Senate. I was under the impression that I had informed the member for London of the result of that investigation. The result was this: We found that accepting the hon. gentleman's amendment would involve an additional charge upon the revenues of the country of between two and three millions- I think about three millions a year. Possibly adopting the amendment proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Power) now might involve the charge that the member for Winnipeg has mentioned-five millions. The view of the Government last session was

that as the Pension Committee had considered the matter in all its bearings at great length, and had reached the conclusions which had been reported to the Ho'use, and as the House had accepted that report in Committee of the Whole, the wisest course for the Government was to act on the Pensions Committee's report, is it had always done, and leave this matter over for consideration when the Pension Committee was formed this year.
I want to say to the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. Power) it is the intention of the Government that there should be a Committee on Pensions this year, just as there has been at prior sessions of the House, and already a Government notice of motion is on the Order Paper for the appointment of such a committee. That is necessary because my hon. friend will recall that under the law as passed last year the bonus only continues until the first of September next, and the committee must review the question as to whether that bonus is to be continued, or modified, or made permanent. A number of other important questions relating to the matter will also be required to be considered. Therefore I suggest to my hon. friend that this motion -on a matter of great importance and commanding the sympathy of members of the House-should be referred to the Committee on Pensions when appointed, for consideration and a report to the House by that committee in connection with other matters that will come up.


Charles Gavan Power: I will not occupy very long in replying to the minister-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1 should point out to the House that if the hon. gentleman exercises his right to reply, the debate on this resolution will be closed. Therefore if any other hon. member desires to speak on the question he now has an opportunity.


Charles Gavan Power: It was far from my intention, in presenting this resolution, to reflect in any manner whatsoever on the Board of Pension Commissioners. I know the three commissioners personally and I have always received the kindest treatment and courtesy at their hand. A reading of the resolution itself should make it clear that my object is to amend the law in order to place beyond dispute who is, and who is not entitled to have a pension under Article 34. I have in mind two cases recited to me by the former hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) last year. For example, supposing a boardinghouse keeper were earning $40 a month from her boarding-house and suddenly

wished to change that boarding-house into an apartment-house, her earnings would then become income and she would lose her pension. I want this kind of thing stopped once and for all so that the widowed mother of a soldier will get a pension even if she has $300,000 just as the wife of a soldier sometimes has $300,000. If she does not want to apply for the pension she need not do so; but I want every widowed mother to be entitled to the pension, and that is the object I had in proposing this resolution. However, I accept the suggestion of the minister and therefore wish to withdraw the motion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman's
resolution is to be withdrawn on the understanding, I assume, that it is to be referred to the Pension Committee. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to withdraw his resolution?
The House gave permission.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
Andrew Ross McMaster: For a return showing for each of the fiscal years 1891, 1896, 1901, 1906, 1911, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919 and estimated 1920 (a) Total revenue of the Dominion; (t>) Expenditure chargeable to Consolidated Fund; (c) Expenditure chargeable to capital; (d) Total expenditure; (e) Estimated population ; (f) Total revenue per head of population; (g) Expenditure per head chargeable to Consolidated Fund; and (h) Total expenditure per head.


PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House:-
That a Special Committee composed of the Honourable Messieurs Boyer, Casgrain, Fowler, Thorne and White (Inkerman), has been appointed for the purpose of considering and reporting upon a scheme for the placing of the new Parliamentary Restaurant, when completed, both as to equipment and administration, on a parity with a first class club or hotel or dining room, and inviting this House to appoint a like Special Committee to act jointly with the Special Committee of the Senate.


NAVAL SERVICE BADGE.
William Duff: -
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and documents, which have passed between the Minister of Naval Affairs, or any of his officials, or any Department of Government, and the Committee on Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the Officers of the Great War Veterans' Association either the Naval or Military branch, and any and all persons, regarding the service badge which has been distributed or is ready for distribution to any and all Canadians who served either in the Canadian or Imperial Naval services, either in Canadian or Overseas waters.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we listened to a very interesting discussion with regard to pensions for widowed mothers of returned soldiers; in fact, since I have had the honour of being a member of this House I have on several occasions had the pleasure of listening to a number of interesting discussions affecting our returned men. For a short time to-night I want to direct the attention of hon. members to our sailors who also fought for their King and country; and although what I am about to discuss will not involve any heavy expenditure, yet I feel, as do a number of our people, that the matter is a very important one.
May I be permitted to say, Sir, that the reason I am asking for these documents is that I received a letter from the Secretary of the Naval Branch of the Great War Veterans' Association of Canada requesting me to take this matter up and obtain the opinion of Parliament regarding the manner in which our sailors have been treated in reference to the service badge issued to those who served either in the Imperial Forces overseas or in the Home Forces in Canadian waters. These sailors are not satisfied with the badge issued to them by the Naval Department of Canada. They feel, Sir, that they should be treated exactly as our soldiers have Been treated in this respect.	[DOT]
The letter to which I have just referred is dated March 2, and is as follows:
The members of this Branch feel very keenly the refusal of the Naval Department to carry out recommendation 14 of the Parliamentary Committee's report. On account of the interest you are taking in naval matters I am instructed to write to you ....
Would it not be possible to have this grievance discussed in the House, especially as a number of naval veterans are being antagonized by the action of the Naval Department.
Now, Mr. Speaker, they say that instead of issuing to the sailors the little bronze badge which we so much admire on the lapels of the coats of our soldiers who fought so gallantly overseas, the Naval Department issued a great big white disc resembling one of the old Mexican dollars, and my information is that these boys are ashamed to wear this badge on their coats.

I may be permitted, Sir, to quote another letter which I have received from a young naval rating who lives in Ashcroft, British Columbia. It is as follows:
I am very pleased indeed to see that you are taking up the matter of the service badge issued to those who served in the Navy during the war. As one of the Naval men who went overseas I wish to state that the badge we have been given is a shame and disgrace and I would not be seen wearing it to a dog fight. As you are probably aware it has much the appearance of some of the military cap badges and in fact is taken for one quite generally. No one ever would dream that it is the service badge issued to its sailors by a grateful country. I trust you will be able to see justice is done the Naval men in this matter.
You will remember, Sir, that last year a committee was appointed by this House to investigate, certain soldier grievances. That committee met a number of times under the chairmanship of the Hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) and at one of those meetings the Great War Veterans' Association made a suggestion with regard to a badge for the naval ratings, which wds adopted by the committee whose report was subsequently submitted to the House, and, if I understand correctly, adopted.
The recommendation to which I refer is contained in the fourteenth clause of the report, and it is in this form:
That members of the Naval Service who have served overseas in either Imperial or Canadian naval services or who have served in any seagoing ship in the Canadian naval service, outside of the three-mile territorial limit, shall be awarded the Class "A" badge with "naval" or suitable words in place of "C.E.F."
Now, Mr. Speaker, in case there is anybody here who does not understand what the Class A badge is, I may say that it is the little bronze badge we see our soldiers wearing on the lapels of their coats. The recommendation was that our naval ratings should be awarded a similar badge, but that instead of the letters "C.E.F." the word "naval" should be engraved thereon.
It is quite evident that this matter is engaging the attention of some of our important newspapers. Under date of March 1, the Toronto Star has an editorial which, with your permission, Sir, I will place on Hansard:


CANADA'S LITTLE BROWN WAR BADGE.
[Stage Direction]
The desire of those Canadians who were in the naval service during the war to be awarded a badge which will be recognizable in this country as denoting that the wearer took part in the war is a perfectly natural one.
The little bronze button worn by the man who fought at the front is a badge of honour, and ever will be. Its significance is known to all
TMr. Duff.]
who see it. Total strangers who wear it, meeting anywhere, establish a bond of understanding at a glance.
The badge which has been issued to the men who saw naval service in the war-and to some who didn't-is a decorative design in silver, too conspicuous for ordinary wear by a modest person. If a man did wear it probably not one person in a hundred in Toronto would know what it meant, and nine out of ten who tried to make a guess as to its meaning would probably regard it as a badge of some sort of noncombatant service. No doubt the tenth person would mistake it for a battalion badge of some sort. The fact is there are not enough naval war service men in the country to introduce this distinctive badge and give it vogue and acceptance.
In the fourth and final report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Re-establishment the 14th suggestion was as follows:
This suggestion I read a moment ago; I shall not repeat it.
It is the carrying out of this recommendation that the returned naval men ask for. In asking this they have the support of the G.W.V.A. organizations here and elsewhere and the editorial support of their organ, The Veteran.
The little bronze badge is the one that counts in Canada

it is the one that every one knows the meaning of and always will, and its meaning is that the wearer risked himself in the Avar and survived such dangers as confronted him in his duties. Already the use of this badge has been extended, and very properly so, to an overseas service not connected with the C.E.F.-those Canadians in the Royal Air Force who flew at the front receiving the badge whether they had formerly been in the military forces or not.
The little bronze badge is the active service war badge of Canada-it is worn by those who saw active service on land and in the air, and should appropriately be extended to those who served on the sea.
I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Toronto Star sums the situation up much better than I could. I see no reason why the Naval Department should depart from the recommendation made by the Parliamentary Committee on Soldiers' Civil Be-establishment and issue this distinctive badge to which the naval men object.
Of the Canadians who served, in the Imperial navy during the war, there were about 300 officers and 2,700 men. While these men did not, perhaps, see active service which our soldiers saw in the trenches, they had to face the danger of the submarines, mines, storms, fogs and winds, during the course of their work in the North sea. Any one who knows anything about seafaring life know what conditions these men had to face as day after day and night after night they stood on the decks of small fifty or one-hundred ton boats, keeping watch over the sea and looking after the interests of British people

everywhere. It seems to me that these men are deserving of the distinctive war badge as are the soldiers.
A number of our Canadian boys took part on the dash on Ostend and in the raid on Zeebrugge. We all remember reading with pride of the raid on Zeebrugge, when the English vessels entered the harbour and closed up the gap so that the German submarines could not get out of their bases. .Surely any Canadians who took part in that raid are deserving of the very best that Canada can give them, and when they ask for a war badge similar to that which is given to our gallant soldiers, I see no reason why their request should not be granted.
The Naval Department give some reasons why they have not issued this distinctive metal badge. They say:
1.	" A.A." badge-
That is, the white metal badge.
-fulfils its purpose.
2.	Objections from the military authorities and the military individually.
3.	Naval veterans are satisfied with the white metal badge.
4.	That naval service should not be ranked on a par with military service in the trenches
I am quoting from a letter which was written to me by the Secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association. Perhaps the Minister of the Naval Service (Mr. Ballan-tyne) will tell us, after I have finished my remarks, whether or not these reasons have been correctly stated.
As to the first objection, I understand that the naval ratings are not satisfied with the white metal badge they would prefer these little bronze badges. The naval ratings say that the white metal badge is not recognized by the public; that it is not suitable to be worn and that " service rendered," the words which appear on the badge, are not adequate or fair.
As to the second objection, that the military authorities and individual soldiers object to the use by the naval ratings of the metal badge, that cannot be correct, because, as I pointed out a few moments ago, at a meeting of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Committee, before which appeared Mr. McNeil, Secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association, and other members of that organization, it was suggested that the same badge be issued to sailors as was being issued to soldiers.
The third reason given is that the naval veterans are satisfied with the white metal badge. Now, Sir, I take exception to that statement; the naval veterans are not satisfied with the white metal badge. I have
on my desk here a number of letters and telegrams which I have received from all over the country since I put this motion on the Order Paper, thanking me for bringing this matter before Parliament and expressing the dissatisfaction of the naval ratings with the white metal badge.
The fourth objection was that the naval service should not be ranked on a par with military service in the trenches. Well, even if that were correct, no naval official should have made the statement. I hope that the minister will be able to say that no such statement was made by the Naval Department, because it seems to me that if our Canadian sailors had been given the chance that they would have been given if we had had Canadian ships on the Canadian coasts, they would have shown their mettle and have done just as good service as was done by the boys in the trenches.
I noticed in the Ottawa Journal a few days ago an announcement which I assume was issued by the Naval Department. It is headed " 1914-15 Bronze Star," and it says:
The Department of the Naval Service announces that the issue of the 1914-15 Bronze Star for service in the Royal Canadian Navy has commenced. The conditions for the award of this decoration are service at sea between August 4, 1914, and December 31, 1915.
I assume from the fact that this badge or star is being issued for service betweeen August, 1914, and December, 1915, that the Naval Department intend to issue a number of badges of different kinds. It .would be far better to issue only one badge. The men do not want these distinctive badges; no reason can be offered for issuing them. I trust that my remarks will be approved by the members of the House and that there will be a general protest to the minister in this matter and a request that only one badge be issued, the same as that which is worn by the soldiers. The cost will surely not be very great. We did not, I am sorry to say, have very many sailors, either in the Imperial or in the Canadian Naval Service; consequently the matter of cost cannot be urged as the reason for the nonissuance of these badges. Even at this late date the department can call in all the white metal badges that have been issued to sailors who served in the naval forces either in Canada or overseas and issue the little bronze badge which is so much admired by everybody. I trust that the minister will listen to the prayer not only of myself, but also of the boys who so gallantly served in our naval forces, and grant their request.
Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of the Naval Service):: Mr. Speaker, I am

grateful to the member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) for putting this motion on the Order Paper and also for his warm words of commendation of those who served their country so ably and so gravely in the Eoyal Canadian Naval Service and in the Imperial Navy.
The House may be interested to know that the total number of Canadians who served overseas with the Imperial naval forces was 1,544, and that there were killed in action 26, lost at sea 3; that 11 died of disease and 5 were wounded. All hon. members will look with pride on this showing made by Canadians who served so well in the Imperial Navy during the war. In addition to that, 5,000 men served in the Eoyal Canadian Naval Service on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. The men who served in the senior branch of the service, either in the Imperial Navy or the Canadian Navy, are naturally proud that they have had an opportunity of serving in that branch.
Those who served Overseas shared, of course, in the glorious traditions of the British navy. Those who served in Canada in our own navy must in a lesser degree also have felt proud of being part of the great Imperial navy, which has not only preserved the British Empire to us but has done so much for the peace of the world. I am therefore glad to rise in my place in this House to-night and say on behalf of the 1,144 Canadians who served in the Imperial navy, and on behalf of the very large majority of the 5,000 men who served in our home naval forces, that while they look with pride on their brother Canadians in the Canadian Army corps who Served so bravely on the fields of France and who deserve all the honour and recognition that has come to them, yet they have equal pride in their own force and want a medal that will distinguish the naval service from their brothers-in-arms of the Canadian Army corps. We have therefore issued three classes of badges to the Naval Service of Canada. I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) that a man would not be proud to wear one of these badges. I have a cut of the (badges in my hand. They are of silver, and are very beautifully designed. In order to meet the views of the large number of sailors of all ratings who have served in the Imperial navy and in the Canadian navy for badges that would be distinct from the badges granted to the other branch of the service, after very careful consideration on the part of the Naval Service, by myself as responsible minister, and by the Government, the following, three classes of

badges have been approved by the Government and the Naval Service, and have been issued:
(1)	Naval Class AA. This corresponds to the Militia Class A. This AA badge is issued to those who have served at sea or Overseas and who have been honourably discharged for reasons other than invalided.
(2)	Naval Class A. This corresponds to Militia Class B. The badge is very beautifully designed, and bears the words " For King and Empire. (Services rendered." This badge is similar to the one issued by the Imperial naval authorities.
(3)	Naval Class B. This corresponds to Militia Class C. It is issued to those who have served on shore or in harbour in Canada and have been honourably discharged. It bears the words " For Honourable Services."
I am sure hon. members will agree that we did well to issue badges to honour these brave men who served Canada so well in guarding our own shores.
The hon. member for Lunenburg has suggested that the naval badge might not be known or recognized. I agree. But if my hon. friend had served in the front line trenches I am sure he would be proud to wear the Class A badge issued by the military authorities, and naturally the sailors are proud of the badges that are issued to them. If I had served in the navy, that fine branch of the service, I would not want to wear the badge of the gallant soldiers, much as we admire them; I would want an entirely distinct badge, and would be very proud indeed of the distinction of wearing the Naval Badge AA. If I had been invalided out of the service, nothing would make me feel, more proud than to wear the badge of the invalided men, and if I had only been permitted to serve on shore I would with equal pride want to wear the Naval Badge B.
It is true that there are a few men in the Naval Service who are desirous of wearing the Military Badge A. They would be content to , have the small letters C.E.F. eliminated from the military badge, and equally small letters inserted to make up the word " Naval;" but a naval man walking along the street or going into an office with that badge would at once be taken for an ex-soldier who had served in the front line trenches. Those Canadians who served at sea in the Imperial service and ran all the risks of mines and submarines and the other risks of naval warfare, can feel an equal pride in wearing Class AA badge. It was felt that the man who had served on shore should not receive a badge

of the same class as the man who had served Overseas, and we have therefore followed the practice of the Department of Militia and Defence. That department issues three badges, A, B and C. Badge A is for soldiers who have served in the front line; Badge B for those who have been invalided out of the service; and Badge C foi those who have served at home. Some did not have the privilege of fighting in the front line trenches, but nevertheless they offered their services and did the very best they could. That is true of our men on both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts. I am sure my hon. friend appreciates that there were certain dangers even in the patrol service on the Atlantic coast. When the German U-boats came to that coast in the summer of 1918, they strewed the waters with mines, any one of /which these patrol boats might have struck, and at any moment a U-boat might come to the surface; so the men who served in our home forces were exposed to certain risks, particularly on the Pacific coast at the outbreak of the war, and in the later stages of the war on the Atlantic coast.
The hon. member for Lunenburg has referred to a recommendation of the special committee which was appointed last spring to consider Bill No. 10, regarding soldiers' civil re-establishment.
'Suggestion 14, to which the hon. member referred, was as follows:
That the members of the Naval Service who have served overseas in either the Imperial or Canadian Naval 'Services, or who have served in any sea-going 'ship in the Canadian Naval Service, outside of the three-mile territorial limit, shall toe awarded a Class "A" toadge with "Naval1' or suitable words in place of "C.E.P."
This was the suggestion that was made to the special parliamentary committee, and the following is their recommendation, which the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) omitted to give us, possibly not having it in his possession:
It is recommended that the suggestion should receive the immediate attention of the Government with a view to removing a cause of complaint which, in the opinion of the committee, appears to he well-founded. The same may be also true of the R.A.P. If so, the matter should receive the attention of the Government.
There is nothing in this paragraph in the nature of any definite suggestion to the Government; it merely brings the matter to their attention. The 'Government gave due consideration to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, and having done so decided to issue the badges which I have fully described to the House.
The hon. member for Lunenburg referred to the Royal Air Force badge being the same as the soldiers' badge, and I think it is buit fit and proper that the two should be the same. The Royal Air Force is part of the army. It is not under the Admiralty, but under the control and direction of the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, Sir Douglas Haig; and when the badges were being given to men of the Royal Air Force they would naturally be the same as those given to the soldiers in the army.
With regard to the medals that have been mentioned, I may say that the Admiralty will give medals, which I shall describe in a moment, to all ratings in the British Navy, and I think that our Canadian men have a right to be given the same medals. These medals are: 1914-15 Star: Service at sea between August 4, 1914, and December 31, 1915; British War Medal (General Service Medal), for those who have been 28 days mobilized in the service; Victory Medal, for those who have served at sea between August 4, 1914, and November 11, 1918. I shall make it my duty, and indeed it will be a pleasure to me, to see that these medals are given to all Canadian naval ratings, both those that were in the Imperial service a!nd those that served at home.


William Duff: Are the badges mentioned by the hon. minister to be given to men in the British navy or to Canadians?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: To men in the British navy. I shall not take up any more time on the subject, but I desire to say that if we granted a badge similar in design to that issued to the Canadian soldiers it would not satisfy the majority of the thousands of our men who served either overseas or in our Canadian naval service. It would also antagonize the Great War Veterans, and I do not think the Militia Council would approve Of it. On the whole, I think that any fair-minded man who has served in either the naval or the military forces will recognize ithe need of having distinctive badges for the two services; and I hope, in view of the brief explanation which I have given to the House this evening, that the hon. member may see his way clear to withdraw his motion.


Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale):: I am interested in this matter because of representations made by large numbers of the naval veterans in Toronto-hundreds of them-that they feel keenly their treatment, which they regard as being unfair. The minister has said about everything that

could be said in defence of his part in this matter, and has said it extremely well, as he always does. But at the same time he seems to me to fall short of explaining something that needs explanation, namely, that the report of the committee-the largest and most important that has sat in this House for years, a committee that sat day in and day out, week after week- came to a conclusion different from the opinions which have just been expressed. The point I wish to call to the attention of the House is that it is not the minister who took this position, but two of his officials. The report of the committee was adopted by this House on the 7th of November last year, but we find that on the 31st of October, -a week before, one of the officials of the Naval Service Department took it on himself to say that we should not have that badge which rwas recommended by the parliamentary committee, of course, that was going pretty far.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the hon. member will permit me, I should like to correct his statement that my officials decided the question. The whole matter was decided by myself as the head of the department, and if there is any blame to be attributed to any one I am the responsible person.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: That is very generous ot my hon. friend, but it is incumbent upon me to point to the date of the letter of Admiral Kingsmill regarding the matter, and I venture to say that the minister will admit the truth of my contention.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Do I understand the hon. member to say that the report to which he has referred was adopted? If I remember rightly it was only received.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I understood that the report of the committee on the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment was adopted and passed on the 7th of November. Whether that is so or not, however, it was received and virtually adopted by a large majority of the House. The letter to which I refer is dated October 31st, and I may read from it:
There appears to be no reason why the badges issued for naval service should not be recognized in the same way as those issued for military service except that, as there are comparatively few naval men in Canada, the public have not become familiar with the naval badges or the service which they denote, though a description of the badges and regulations governing their issue have been published in the press; and there is no doubt that in some cases discharged naval men have suffered injustice through the public not understanding the significance of the badges awarded to them.

The letter does not refer in any way to the fact, which wad afterwards discovered, that there were some objections from the Department of Militia.
But that comes a couple of months later in a letter from the Deputy Minister of Naval Service. What happened was this: The admiral and the deputy minister came to the conclusion that they will make a badge, and they design a silver badge which the men do not like. But it would seem to be lese majeste to suggest that the badge designed by these two officials was not the thing for the soldiers and sailors, and the minister apparently thinks it would be a good thing to have some advice from the Department of Militia and Defence. He says:
It was considered necessary that the opinion of the Militia Department be obtained before taking any action.
Although we had declared in this House that this particular badge with the word "Naval" should be issued to the sailors. He says further:
There appears to be no reason why these badges should not receive due recognition.
The Naval Department, therefore does not feel justified in issuing a badge similar to the Class "A" Militia. Badge, when by so doing it is clear that great dissatisfaction would be caused.
There is no evidence of dissatisfaction. As a matter of fact, the secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association, Mr. Mae-Neil, was present at the committee; he is a soldier, he represents the soldiers; there were all sorts of officials present; and it was stated that the sailors asked for this particular badge. Any objection which came from the Deputy Minister of Naval Affairs or from the Militia Department afterwards must have come with very poor grace after the matter had been decided by the committee. How was _this badge issued by the committee and how did they come to the conclusion that it would be better to make no distinction, or very little distinction, between the badges to be worn by the soldiers and the sailors? They are both fighting the battle of the country; they are both looking for jobs when they come back. When the men get back and line up before an em-jloyer in order to get a job, it is a great advantage to a returned man to have a service badge. But if he wears a silver badge which nobody knows anything about, and which, although it may be very dear to the heart of the officials of the Naval Service, is not relished at all by the sailors themselves, and which may look like a badge of the Ancient Order of Pelicans, or something of that kind, he is not likely to be selected by

the employer. That was said by a gentleman who appeared before the committee, a gentleman who entered the service as a sailor and afterwards rose to the rank of a petty officer. Here is what he says:
Q. What is the point there?-A. Canadian sailors, I think, are the Canadians that have served overseas on active service that are not being granted the recognized active service button. This places all classes of sailors at a disadvantage.
Q. In the public estimation?-A. In the public estimation, a returned sailor going in to see an employer asking for a position, there is probably a line-up of men asking for employment and the employer does not stop to ask questions, his eye instinctively travels to the left lapel of the man's coat to see if the button is there and if the man is a strong, vigorous, active young man fit for service the employer simply asks no questions, but suggests that he go somewhere else to look for a position.
That is the evidence of the secretary of the Naval Branch, who was promoted during the war. I have also the evidence of an officer of the force and which shows that our sailors went all over the world. I refer to Captain A. C. Turner, whose evidence will be found at page 927: He says:
If I may take my own case as an example, I first of all went to England and was kept there a few months. Then I was sent to Gallipoli and the Dardanelles. Prom there I was sent back to the Channel and I had comand of my own ship in the attacks on Zeebrugge and Os-tend. From there I went to the north of Scotland. For that service I have nothing to show. Until six months after the armistice there was no button that we could wear to show that we had been overseas. Lately the Naval Service Department issued a large white metal badge which however entirely failed in its purpose. First of all, it is not known to the public, and therefore is of no value. The only button of any value, so far as the public is concerned is that for service at the front. Secondly, that button in its wording is absolutely inadequate. It simply says, " For service rendered." It does not indicate the service. That is our request about the badge and our members feel very strongly about it. It puts them in an unfair position both in business and in private life. They fail to see why a line should be drawn between them and the men who went overseas as soldiers. Most of these three hundred Canadian Naval officers did exceptionally good work in various parts of the world. They went because they knew more about naval matters than about infantry or gunner work or military matters. They thought they could serve their country best in that way, and yet until about two months ago they had been given no badge of any description.
Q. Did you say you were at Zeebrugge?-A. Yes, I had the honour of being in command of a motor launch at Zeebrugge and I was later at the successful action against Ostend. ,
Q. You were under fire?-A. We were under fire for two hours and forty minutes at Zeebrugge and for two hours at Ostend. You have probably heard Captain Carpenter speak of that action.	All who were
in it were right in shore.	Up to six or
eight weeks ago there was not a button or a badge of any description that I could secure or that any Canadian Naval officers could secure to show that we had seen service. Now we have got a badge that is equal to the Class B badge. It is too large to be worn on the lapel of the coat, and it is absolutely unknown to the general public.
Q. Did you make application to the Admiralty or to the Canadian authorities for a badge? -A. We did, and that is the result.
Q. What sort of badge is it that you desire? -A. We desire one for service at the front; perhaps instead of the words " C.E.F." some suitable word such as " Naval " or " Naval Service."
That evidence so impressed the committee, sitting there deliberating and hearing the whole thing, that they came to the conclusion that is found in the report. I do not think that the report should be whittled down to the fine point to which it has been whittled by the minister because I am quite sure that it was meant by this House to give these sailors what they asked for. It is recommended that:
The suggestion should receive the immediate attention of the Government with a view to removing a cause of complaint which, in the opinion of the committee, appears to be well founded. The same may be also true of the R.A.F.
It appears that the R.A.F. had a Naval Service button known to all as the R.A.F. button. But when it comes down to interfering with this little silver badge that nobody wants but the officials of the Naval Service there is all the difference in the world. They make no difference between a man on the ground and a man in the air but they make a tremendous difference between a man on the ground and a man on the sea. There is nothing to warrant this. While I respectfully beg to commend the minister for the way in which he has defended the department I do not think they have done the just thing by these men. The minister says:	I would not want to
wear that little badge. The minister has not been overseas but those who have been overseas do want to wear this well known badge. They say it helps them in civil life, and I do not think that the minister or anybody else should now say:	It is my
duty to decide what they want, or what they think they want. It is rather the duty of the minister to give them what they do want. I think it would be a very small thing to scrap this silver badge, issue a war badge, and give that badge to all returned soldiers and sailors.


Daniel Lee Redman: Mr. Speaker while there may be something to be said in support of the view advanced by

the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) the fact remains that we have two arms of the service; the senior arm-the navy, and the other arm-the army. The Naval Department have issued two badges for the navy. The army have also issued their badges. There seems to be nothing improper in that, no differentiation against the Naval Service. In fact, as I said before, they are the senior arm of the service, and should have the badge which belongs to that arm. Given that, everything is being done for them that could he done and possibly in that respect they have an advantage over the army. To any one who has thought enough of the navy to enter it, as compared with entering the army-surely the love of such men for that particular branch of our forces will still continue, and they ought to desire a distinctive badge for that service. It does not seem to me that any practical difficulty could he encountered in the wearing of that badge. Any man wearing it ought to be pleased to explain to any Canadian who had not sufficient knowledge of our affairs to recognize the badge, that it was a badge of the Canadian Navy. The members of that service are connected with the great British Navy which after all, in the British Empire, always has been, and possibly always will be, more important than our army. The traditions and associations of the British Navy are theirs, and they surely will be glad to have a badge which is peculiarly connected with those traditions and associations. Then we must look to the future in a country like Canada. With our vast coast line on three oceans Canada must have naval protection in some form or other. In the future we must have a navy along our coasts, and if that be the case there is no better way of educating our people to the fact that we have a navy, that we have men who fight for us in that navy, than that those men shall wear ,a distinctive naval badge.
Reference has been made to the report of the committee and it recommended that some button should be given. The committee did go so far as to say that the complaints in regard to the matter appeared to be well founded and that the question should be considered by the minister. That inquiry, however, was only a side line in the investigation, the main subject was that of the extent of the gratuity or direct help that should be given to our soldiers. The hon. member (Mr. Mowat) has mentioned the case of the Royal Air Force and the minister explained that that was a part of the army. We might also say that the

Royal Naval Air Force is a part of the navy, and doubtless in the future will be classified under it.
I do not think any one in Canada will feel dissatisfied in that the men of the Naval Service hold a naval decoration rather than an army decoration. I would not go so far as to say that the men who have served in the army would have no objection to the naval men wearing this badge. I think that all these men have the highest regard for naval men, but the soldiers' idea of discipline and orderliness would tend to make them think that as a general principle it will be more in accord with army and navy practice that each branch of the service should have their own peculiar and distinct decoration.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would not enter into this debate had I not had the experience the other day of seeing one of these badges and therefore can well understand the disinclination of the naval men to wearing it. If you have ever, Mr. Speaker, seen the Highlander in full regalia you surely would have noticed the badge or broach on his left shoulder fastening his shawl. Now the badge in question is almost as large as the brooch you see on members of the Highland Brigade. It may be that the minister, who no doubt looks well in the regalia of a Scottish regiment, was duly impressed with the idea of the traditional Highland costume.
The trouble with the minister in this matter is that he does not understand the mentality of the sailor, although he is at the head of the navy, and for a long time was a harbour commissioner of the harbour of Montreal. The sailor, Mr. Speaker, is a brave and a modest man; his bravery is only equalled by his modesty. This medal or badge is one which on an ordinary lapel will extend over each side for at least one-eighth of an inch and is of bright, shiny metal. I do not think it is silver, because silver is so valuable these days, that the Minister of Finance would scarcely allow the Department of Naval Service to issue such a badge in real silver. It is more likely a mixture of tin and zinc, a-bright shiny, white metal. The fact of the matter is that we should give our sailors, who are just as much entitled to credit for their bravery as our soldiers, no more and no less than the latter. We should give them a badge that they would be pleased to wear and not a badge that is so conspicuous that it offends a man's sense of modesty to wear it. I speak with perfect seriousness in this matter. We should give our sailors a badge which is as attractive as that of the army but

sufficiently different to be distinguishable from it. It should be of such a size and so inconspicuous that a modest man would be pleased to wear it. Hundreds of thousands of young men all over the country are wearing army service buttons, but I see very few men wearing the brooch-for it is a sort of a brooch-which the Department of Naval Service has issued. I believe the reason for that is that men do not like to make themselves unduly conspicuous.
1 would urge upon the House the wisdom of the motion made by the hon. member (Mr. Duff). I do not often find myself in complete agreement with the words of the member for Parkdale, but the fact that I do find myself in complete agreement with what he said to-night will, I trust, add weight to his words.
Mr. E, W. NESBITT (North Oxford): 1 would like to endorse what my hon. friend for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) has said. So far as the conclusions of the committee were concerned the whole of their report was a recommendation to the House, and that .part of the report dealing with this particular matter was just as much a recommendation as the other matters treated in the report. The reason why the committee came to the conclusion it did was because it was waited on by various members of the Naval Brigade; and when the young fellow who commanded a motor boat at Zeebrugge -probably one of the most daring feats ever carried out by the British navy-when he applied personally to have the badge changed and to have a badge similar to the organizations that have been mentioned, I had no hesitation in supporting the suggestion to change the badge, and that these young men should be given the type they wanted. As the hon. member for Parkdale asked, what difference does it make to us? These young men only want what they certainly have earned, and as the cost will not be very great the committee could not see any reason why the request should not be granted.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: i Would jthe hon. member want the badge given to all those that served in the Canadian navy, at home as well as abroad-the identical soldiers' badge, with the exception of the small word "Naval" instead of the badge of the "C.E.F."?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have no choice in the matter. It did not make any difference to me what the badge was, I simply concurred in the demand of these men.


Mr. FIELDING:: The minister asked
that the resolution be withdrawn. I would like to draw his attention to the fact that the motion does not express any opinion; it merely calls for papers to which I presume there can be no objection.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I quite agree with the hon. member (Mr. Fielding). I noticed, what he refers to, but I thought it might be agreeable to the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). If, however, it is not,
I have no objection to conform to the motion as it reads on the Order Paper.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:: Mr. Speaker, I ' did not intend to take any part in this discussion until I heard the speech of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). After listening to him I concluded that he was trying to camouflage himself to the world as a Highlander!


Andrew Ross McMaster: I come of decent Lowland folk and never did anything of the kind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The name " McMaster " has graced the personnel of many a Highland regiment. But, like Peter of old, his language has betrayed him to-night, and he shocked my modesty very much by asking: What sort of a shawl this is that a Highlander wears? Let me tell my hon. friend from Brome that that is the shawl which was worn by the 42nd Highlanders at the Battle of Waterloo; that the same shawl was worn by the Highlanders at the Relief of Lucknow; and that the same shawl was worn by Highlanders in the many battles all over the world where they have distinguished themselves and brought honour and glory to their King and country.
The pin or brooch which my hon. friend knows so little about is the clasp with which the Highlander fastens his plaid across his broad shoulders,-and if the badge which has been issued to these sailors bears any resemblance to the Highlander's brooch, I have no sympathy with any man refusing to wear it.
I did not hear the speech of my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) which I regret very much, and I heard only part of the speech of the Minister of Naval Service (Mr. Ballantyne), but I thought it was worth while, for the education and edification of my hon. friend from Brome, that I should give him some information about the shawl and the brooch and the reason for the pride with which Highlanders wear their plaid and every other part of their

uniform from the bonnet to the buckle on their shoes.
I can quite understand, Mr. Speaker, that there should be some distinction between the badges awarded to the several classes of our Canadian forces. There is nothing too honourable to be worn by our soldiers who were at the front or who tried to get there; and there is equal distinction coming to any man who honourably served his country in the Naval Service where real service was performed. But I am not in sympathy with giving any decoration to men who during the war served in what was called the Canadian Navy, because I submit, Mr. Speaker, that so far as I know -and I know a good deal about them- they did not do very much that entitled them to any honour. I do not think they were serving with the idea of being awarded medals. At any rate, they had no opportunity of distinguishing themselves because they had not any fighting ships, and certainly it would not be fair to put a man who served in our Canadian Navy upon the same footing as the man who served in the British Navy during the war. If badges are to be issued for naval men I hope a distinction will be made and that it will be given to our men who served in the British Navy rather than to those who were engaged around our own coast in absolute security and who *were able to return to harbour every night and sleep soundly in their beds. Possibly if I had heard the whole speech of the hon. minister I would have no doubt as to the different classes of badges that are to be issued. But I would join my voice with those who say that these naval men should be given the kind of badge they require so long as it does not interfere with the distinctive badge issued to the soldiers.


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Speaker, on 7th of November, 1919, the report that I referred to was adopted by this House. On that date, I see, a division was taken and the main motion that the report of the committee be received was agreed to. So the member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is wrong. Of course, as this is not a private fight anybody can get into it, but I have not taken sides in ithe matter because 1 do not understand the question. The point, however, is, that since this report was agreed to by the House it certainly shuts out all criticism of it; it would be an entirely different thing were it only received,-especially in view of the fact that the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has come down so heavily and

almightily on the whole situation as to say that it was not adopted but only received.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is a pure technicality. It does not matter.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I-


Georges Henri Boivin: Before the hon. member (Mr. Duff) exercises his right to reply it is my duty to inform the House that any hon. member who desires to take part in this debate must do so now.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much time replying to the arguments put forward by the hon. Minister of Naval Service (Mr. Rallantyne). It seems to me that after what has been said by hon. members who support me in this matter there is only one thing for the minister to do-to recall the badges already issued and to issue the badge which the sailors require.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you noticed that during the minister's remarks he did not tell us whether the sailors asked for those particular badges which he has been issuing. I would like to know who did ask for them. Was it the sailors, or, as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) suggests, did the request come from the officials of the department?
We know that the minister is large-hearted. Last year, Sir, when I made a speech with reference to the Canadian navy, he was so big-hearted that he wanted to take on his shoulders not only the sins of the officials of his department while he was minister, but their sins while under his predecessor. To-night he is doing the very same thing, he is shouldering the sins of his officials who were responsible for these monstrosities.
The minister did me the honour of sending me a few minutes 'ago specimens of the three different badges which he has issued. The first one, as I have already said, is a monstrosity. It is certainly no honour to the scarf-pin which the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) and I wear when we don our kilts. Further, Sir, I say it is an insult on the part of the member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) to refer to this monstrosity as something like the scarf-pin which Scotchmen wear.
This first badge, Sir, consists of two fouled anchors. That will enable the House to form an estimate of the artistic capabilities of the designer. You know, when a vessel gets her anchor fouled she goes adrift. Well, I suppose

that is what is going to happen to these sailors. God knows that they had opportunity enough of going adrift while they were at sea; the minister evidently intends now to send them adrift with a heavy disc on their left lapels. Above these two fouled anchors there is a scroll; then a great, big crown. Sir, the thing is not fit to wear; I would not have my dog wear it, let alone give it to a man who has served in the naval forces.
Now, I was not a sailor during the war, nor was I a soldier, but the member for Calgary (Mr. Redman) said, as I understood him, that the army was the senior arm of the service.


An hon. MEMBER:: He said, .the navy.


William Duff: Then I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I thought he said that the army was the senior arm. I contend that the British navy is the senior arm of our forces. I say, then, that if the Great War Veterans' Association is satisfied that the same badge be issued to sailors as is issued to soldiers, all members of Parliament, the minister included, should agree that the one badge be issued.
Somebody has evidently told the minister that the Great War Veterans' Association objected to the use by sailors of this metal badge. The secretary of the Great War Veterans' Association, Mr. McNeil, assures me that the executive of the Dominion Command of that association is unanimously in favour of the recommendation to which I refer. Whether it was adopted, makes no difference; the fact is that the committee brought down this recommendation to the House; a recommendation which was endorsed by the military branch of the Great War Veterans' Association, as well as the Ontario Command. If the soldiers are willing that their comrades in the navy wear a badge the same as that worn by them, with the substitution of "Navy" for " C.E.F.," then the minister should scrap the different badges which he is issuing and issue a bronze badge similar to that which the soldiers are wearing.
The minister said that he was following the example of the British navy. Well, the British navy is a very old institution, and I can understand why they find it necessary to have distinctive badges or medals. But the Canadian navy comprises a very small part of the forces which we sent overseas; consequently it is not necessary for us to have three or four distinctive badges. As I have said, my only idea in bringing this matter up is to comply with the request of the Great War Veterans' Association and also of a number of sailors from whom I have received letters and telegrams. Under the circumstances the minister should, I think, reconsider this matter, and issue the same badge for sailors as is issued for soldiers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
George Green Foster: I should like to reply to a question that was put to me on Friday by the leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King) as to the resignation of the ministers who have resigned since the last session of Parliament. Up to that time I believe that explanations were made with regard to resignations which had taken place previously. I do not think I can make any better explanation than to lay on the Table the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister and the tVo ministers who resigned. I may add, however, that in neither case was the resignation on account of any difference, either personal or with reference to policy.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether this correspondence will be set out in detail in Hansard. If some other arrangement is not made he will have to read it in order that it may appear on Hansard.


George Green Foster: If it is the desire that the correspondence should appear on Hansard, I have no objection.


Jacques Bureau: We can consent to its being put on Hansard, and dispense with the reading of it.


George Green Foster: If there is no objection, then, Mr. Speaker, we will have it on Hansard.


Georges Henri Boivin: This can only be done of course, with the unanimous consent of the House. If no hon. member takes exception, the correspondence may be printed in Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
The correspondence thus authorized to be published in Hansard is as follows:


DEPARTMENT OP MILITIA AND DEFENCE.
[Stage Direction]
Minister's Office,
Ottawa, September 22, 1919.
My dear Sir Robert Borden,-In the reorganization of the Cabinet, which you now have under consideration, I trust you will not
[Stage Direction]
overlook the request I made to you some little time ago, to permit me to retire from my present position In the Government.
As I stated to you then, I accepted the portfolio of Minister of Militia and Defence ('Canada) with a keen desire to play my part in assisting you in every way possible to bring the war to a successful conclusion, and to support the Canadian Corps at the front with reinforcements. On the termination of the war, and before you left for the Peace Conference, at your request, I agreed to stay on for a time to carry out, so far as this department was concerned, the big problem of demobilization. As this task is just about completed, and as this department will now be reorganized on a peace basis, I feel that ray contract has terminated and that the administration of the department should now be handed over to some one else.
While the war was on I did not hesitate to sacrifice everything I had to give my service to my country, I have been absent from my home and my ' business for nearly five years, and have been compelled to neglect my practice and my private affairs, but I feel repaid, inasmuch as I have had the privilege of doing something to support you, in a small way, in the enormous responsibilities that have been cast upon your shoulders since the 4th of August, 191.4. During this long period, in the various offices I have been privileged to occupy in the public service, I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to conscientiously carry out my duties faithfully and to give you my very best support.
X feel that the time has come when I must, in fairness to my family, take a short rest and give personal attention to my private affairs that have been sadly neglected for so long. I would, therefore, ask you to accept my resignation as Minister of Militia and Defence at the earliest possible date.
I wish to express to you my very deep appreciation of the confidence you have reposed in me, and of the very loyal1 and whole-hearted support you have given to me while I have been a member of your Cabinet, and. I trust that confidence will continue for all time.
I have the honour to 'be, tny dear Sir Robert Tour obedient servant,
S. C. Mewburn.
The Right Honourable
Sir Robert Borden, P.C., G.CM.G.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Ottawa, Ont., December 29, 11919,
My dear Sir Robert Borden,-Wiith reference to my letter to you of the 22nd September, my subsequent interview with you, and having regard' to the events which have developed during the past few days, owing to your very regrettable illness, I find from every standpoint I am compelled to ask you to accept my resignation as (Minister of Militia and Defence, and I urgently request that same take effect not later than January Ii5 next.
I sincerely trust that you will ere long be restored to your old-time health and strength.
Believe me, my dear Sir Robert,
Tours faithfully,
S. C. Mewburn.
The Right Honourable
Sir Robert B. Borden, P.C., G.C.M.G., Prime Minister, Ottawa, Ont.

Ottawa, Ont., December 29, 1919.
Dear General Mewburn,-It is with the greatest regret that I have received your letter announcing the necessity of your retirement early in January. In September last you agreed, at my earnest request, to -remain until the end' of the year, in view of my unavoidable absence for some weeks from Ottawa; and I am grateful that you remained at your post during that period.
Throughout the war you have given splendid and conspicuous service to Canada and to the Empire in different capacities. Especially dur-[DOT] ing the period in which you have presided over the Department of Militia and Defence your service has been notable. I am most grateful that in October, 19117, you accepted my invitation to become a member of the Union Government,. upon which has been laid) so heavy a burden of responsibility. During the period that hias since elapsed you have given most valuable assistance in the discharge of that responsibility.
I trust that every Messing may attend you and your family in the New Tear upon which we are soon to enter.
Faithfully yours,
R. E. Borden.
Major-General
The Hon. S. C. Mewburn, M.P.,
Minister of Militia and Defence,
Ottawa.
Ottawa, February 23, 1920.
My diear Sir George,-I beg herewith to tender my resignation as a member of the Government of Canada, and respectfully request an immediate acceptance of the same.
Tours faithfully,
A. K. Maclean.
Sir George Foster,
Acting Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Ont.
Ottawa, Ont., February 24, 1920.
Dear Mr. Maclean,-I received your letter of resignation as a member of the Government of Canadia and in accordance with your request give you 'an immediate notice of its acceptance.
I regret exceedingly that you have found it necessary to sever -a connection which for the past two years and more has been so pleasant to all your colleagues and so fruitful of service by yourself.
Personally-, I shall miss your counsel and your helpful co-operation.
Tours faithfully,
George E. Foster. Honourable A. K. Maclean, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KINO (Leader of the Opposition):: I am informed that there is an Associated Press cable from London to-day to the effect that the status of the proposed representative of Canada at Washington has been definitely fixed by the British and Canadian Governments.
I should like to ask the Acting Prime Min-

ister if that report is correct and whether he has any information to give to the House with regard to it.


George Green Foster: All that I can say is that the correspondence is still proceeding and that when it has ended an announcement will be made in the House.


A NATIONAL EIGHT-HOUR WORKING DAY.
[Stage Direction]
Resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of Mr. Burnham:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that to the extent of the jurisdiction of ithis Parliament a national eight-hour working day should be established immediately, subject only to the right of express private contract.
Mr. I. E. ARGUE (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this resolution from the point of view of the farmer. If this resolution carries and the eight-hour day becomes law in Canada, I do not see how we shall be able to carry it out on the farm. There is a great deal of lost time on the farm on account of inclement weather. To-day we are paying higher salaries than were ever paid in Canada for farm labour; in my own district we are paying from $75 to $100 a month. During the greater part of the summer, during seeding and the summer fallow, we must work our teams at least nine hours a day in order to get our work done. If we do that we are in the position of having to pay a man time and a half for overtime or of hiring a stableman to take care of the teams when they come from the farm and to get them ready to go out to work the next morning. Then, during harvest time when the grain is ripe and hundreds of acres are standing ready to cut, we must work ten or twelve hours a day to get the cutting done. I do not know how 'many hours they work in Ontario during threshing time, but I know that our machines start at daylight and work until dark, and sometimes after.
When our teams are hauling grain to the elevators it is often eight or nine o'clock before they get back to the farm. If the eight-hour day goes into effect in Canada it will simply mean that living, instead of becoming cheaper, will become dearer in this country. It will mean an increase of fifty per cent in the price of farm products. We have no objection to an eight-hour day in shops and factories. They can work eight or ten hours a day if they wish, but I do not see why we should pass legislation in this House to restrict the working hours of
29.
possibly the only people in Canada who seem to be willing to work-the farmers. I shall be compelled to vote against the motion.
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the question which is raised by this motion was one that engaged the attention of the Washington Conference, and as what was done at that conference may have some bearing upon this matter I think it is only right to put the House in possession of the facts. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is here, he can speak to the House on the constitutional aspect of the case.
Hon. members will recall that under the labour clauses of the Treaty of Peace, it is declared that among the conditions of labour which are producing "unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled " are the hours of labour, and among the measures which it is recommended should be adopted is one " regulating the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week." Among the principles laid down in the treaty as of urgent importance is: "The adoption of an eight-hour day or a forty-eight-hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not been already attained." And in the agenda for the Washington Conference as set out in the Treaty the first article is " the application of the principle of the eight-hour day and the forty-eight-hour week."
I have referred to these matters in order to indicate to the House the exact nature of the question that came before the Washington Conference for consideration. The question before the Conference was not whether it was desirable or undesirable to pass legislation regulating the hours of labour. That principle was affirmed in the Treaty of Peace; and in all the provinces of the Dominion legislation has been passed regulating the hours of labour in certain classes of industry and among particular classes of workers, particularly women and children. So that principle is recognized in the legislation of Canada and, I think, of all civilized countries. Nor was it the question of whether, in regulating the hours of labour an eight-hour day or a forty-eight hour week would be wise or unwise. That general principle was also laid down in the Treaty. The question which the Washington Conference was called upon to consider was whether there should be an eight-hour day or a forty-eight-hour week or some modification or combination of the two, and whether the



time had arrived to secure general application of that principle to all industrial nations. Hon. members of the House will recognize that one of the principles underlying the labour clauses of the Peace Treaty is that uniform action should be secured on these matters among the industrial nations, that the failure of one or more industrial nations to take action on any of these matters embarrassed, and, in a measure prevented other nations from taking advanced ground. Therefore the issue before the Conference was to ascertain if an agreement could be secured among the representatives of the nations members of the Conference whereby these nations would move forward together in a matter of this kind. What action did the Washington Conference take on this matter and how is such action to be made effective? I will tell the House briefly for the information of hon. gentlemen. Article 19 of the labour clauses provides:
When the Conference has decided on the adoption of proposals with regard to an item in the agenda, dt will rest with the Conference to determine whether these proposals should take the form; (a) of a recommendation to be submitted to the members for consideration with a view to effect being given to it by national legislation or otherwise, or (b) of a draft international convention for ratification by the members.
Hon. members will see that it was open to the Conference to adopt either of these two courses, either to set forth its conclusions in the form recommended which would go forward to the different nations with the view to unite giving effect thereto by national, or the Conference might decide that its decision should take the form of an international treaty or convention to be signed and ratified by the nations parties to the Conference if they approved,
This same article also provides the vote necessary to make .the decision effective :
A majority of two-thirds of the votes cast by the delegates present shall be necessary on the final vote for the adoption of the recommendation or draft convention, as the case may be, by the Conference.
In the case of this particular convention the necessary two-third majority was secured. Now what follows when a convention is adopted? That is also provided in Article 19;
A copy of the recommendation or draft convention shall be authenticated by the signature of the president of the Cpnference and of the Director, and shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. The Secretary-General will communicate a certified copy of the recommendation or draft convention to each of the members.
[Mr. Rowell. 1
Now by reason of the fact that the Washington Conference was held prior to the League of Nations being constituted, because the ratification of the Treaty did not become effective till the 10th of January, the Conference was not formally closed, but was adjourned until after the Treaty of Peace had gone into effect by reason of its ratification, and the Conference was formally closed by declaration of the governing body at the meeting held in Paris after the Treaty had gone into effect. Before action is taken a certified copy of this .convention must be sent to the secretary of the League of Nations, and a certified copy must be sent by him to each member. The Government has not yet received the certified copy of this or of any of the conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference at Washington.
Therefore the Government is not in receipt of any official communication up to the present time upon which it can take official action. This clause also sets out the obligation which shall rest upon 'each member.
Each of the members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the Conference, or, if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment, and in no case later than eighteen months from the closing of the session of the Conference, bring the recommendation or draft convention before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies for the enactment of legislation or other action.
The members of the House will see that that raises an important question, particularly in a country like Canada, with a federal constitution, as to whether the legislative authority before which this matter should be brought for appropriate action would be the legislatures of the provinces or the federal parliament. It goes on:
In the case of a draft convention, the member will, if it obtains the consent of the authority or authorities wiithin whose competence the matter lies, communicate the formal ratification of the convention to the Secretary-General and will take such action as may be necessary to make effective the provisions of such convention.
Then there is a further express provision dealing with a federal state:
In the case of a federal state, the power of which to enter into conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, it shall be in the discretion of that government to treat a draft convention to which such limitations apply as a recommendation only, and the provisions of this article with respect to recommendations shall apply in such case.

As the Minister of Justice is here I shall not undertake to discuss the constitutional aspect of the question either in relation to the federal parliament, or the rights and powers of the provincial legislatures.


Mr. MORPHY:: I cannot hear what the minister is saying, but I should like to know whether it is his opinion that this Parliament has no jurisdiction in the matter at all.


Newton Wesley Rowell: What I said was that, as the Minister of Justice was here, and as he has been giving the whole matter serious consideration, I would not undertake to pass upon that aspect of it. The Minister of Justice will be able to state the position as he sees it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Will the Minister of Justice make a statement on that particular question before this debate is over?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to ask a question of the minister (Mr. Rowell) in order that we may fully understand the procedure. In the event of this draft convention being submitted to a parliament that has jurisdiction and such parliament deciding not to take the action suggested in the convention, what would be the consequence of its position?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot undertake at
this moment to answer the question raised by my hon. friend. He will see that it involves a very important question, under our constitution, which would require very careful consideration. My hon. friend no doubt understands that the obligation of a government to submit a convention is exactly the same whether or not that government agrees with the principle of the convention. It may be open to very serious argument that a government, under our system, in submitting such a recommendation, should Submit it so as to permit a free and open vote of the members of the House. That is one view of the matter. The other view would be that the government must take the responsibility of submitting the convention to the House as a government. But it would be a rather anomalous and embarrassing situation if the government were bound to submit to parliament a convention against which it had voted at the conference and with the principle of which it did not agree, and to put it forward as a government measure, virtually saying that parliament must adopt it. I mention this merely to indicate that, here again is a very 29i
important question which will require the most careful consideration before a precedent is established which might to some extent bind subsequent governments. The matter is not free from very serious difficulty in the consideration of its constitutional aspect.


John Hampden Burnham: May I ask when steps will be taken to settle the question of jurisdiction?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That whole question is
now under the consideration of the Department of Justice. This afternoon I promised my hon. friend (Mr. Burnham) at his request that I would make a statement to the House in regard to the terms of the Washington Convention, so that hon. members might be informed on the subject; and in view of this, and the fact that the Minister of Justice will make a statement in reference to the question of jurisdiction, I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw the motion, because he has accomplished his purpose in bringing the subject to the attention of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In order that we may clearly understand the powers of governments in this matter, will my hon. friend explain to the House how any government will be made to carry out any convention that is agreed upon? As I understand the minister, there is an international convention drafted, and it is submitted to the governments of the different countries that are members of the League of Nations. Should any one of those nations decide not to carry out the convention, by what means will it be coerced, or is there any means of doing this?


Newton Wesley Rowell: As I explained the other afternoon in discussing the Bulgarian Treaty, there is no means of compelling a government to carry out any convention. The obligation of the Government is to present the matter to -the competent legislative authority, for consideration and action. If that body determine that the convention shall not be accepted, or, in the case of a recommendation, that it shall not be acted upon, then the government has discharged its whole responsibility under the terms of the Treaty. But there is a provision requiring the government to submit the convention to the competent authority, and any government declining to do so might be subject to an economic boycott and the other penalties provided for to insure the enforcement of the provisions of the treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
point which I desired to bring out. I wanted to know the method by which obligations were to be enforced.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It depends, in the last
analysis, upon the public opinion of any country, as voiced through its competent legislative assembly, whether any convention shall or shall not be accepted in that particular country.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Suppose this Parliament were found to have no jurisdiction, the jurisdiction being in the provincial legislatures, what would be the position of the Dominion then in relation to the League of Nations?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In that event, the whole responsibility of the Government of Canada would be to submit the matter to the respective provinces, and it would he for the provinces to decide what action they should take. The whole obligation of this Government would be discharged if it submitted the matter to the provinces.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Have the provinces any status in connection with the League of Nations and how do they come into juxtaposition?	'


Newton Wesley Rowell: The treaty expressly provides for, and contemplates, the case of states with a federal constitution. The matter came up in considering the position of the United States. Brazil also has a federal constitution and provision was made in the treaty for such cases. The reason the treaty says, "Competent legislative authority" is that it was considered that some of these matters might come within the competence of provincial parliaments and not within the competence of the Federal Parliament.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand the
President of the Privy Council to say that if the Department of Justice, or the highest judicial authority of the land, decides that this matter is within the purview of the provincial legislatures, and one of the provincial governments refuses to submit the agreement to the legislative body, or the legislature refuses to take it into consideration, a boycott will be resorted to? Are the other provinces of the Dominion to refuse to do business with this particular province -to boycott it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend has misunderstood what I said. I said nothing of that kind. What I said was that in cases where jurisdiction rests in the provinces 
and not in the Dominion, the whole obligation is discharged when the Federal Government passes on the recommendation to the province. There is no boycott, the provinces are not obligated to take action and the Federal Parliament has no authority to compel them to take action. The only case where the obligations of the treaty could be brought into play would be if the Federal Government declined to take any action or declined to submit the convention or recommendation to the competent legislative authority.


Jacques Bureau: The way out is for the Federal Government to deny its jurisdiction?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It cannot deny it if it has it. But the Minister of Justice will discuss these matters of jurisdiction, and I think we will save time by leaving them to him to discuss.


William Stevens Fielding: Has my hon. friend in mind the date of the Washington conference?


Newton Wesley Rowell: November.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that the official report has not yet been received by the Government of Canada?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The conference,' as I explained, only adjourned; it did not conclude its session. The reason it did not conclude its session was because, owing to the delay in the ratification of the Treaty of Peace, the treaty had not been ratified when the conference concluded its regular business. Therefore the conference formally adjourned, instead of closing its session, and the conference was proclaimed closed some time in the month of January or February -I do not remember the date-by action in Paris, when the executive, or governing body, met. The chairman and secretary of the conference could not transmit any convention to the secretary of the League of Nations prior to the formal closing of the conference, and the secretary-general of the League of Nations could not transmit certified copies to the nations which are members of the League of Nations until he had received them from the chairman of the conference. Therefore, all have not received them. But there has been no great delay in dealing with the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether, in his opinion, the circumstance of the United States not having become a member of the League of Nations would have any effect in delaying a con-

elusion upon the question as to whether the Federal Government ought to take action on this convention.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That would be an important factor to be taken into consideration. Now,, just a word or two as to what the convention does provide. In the first place, it differs from the resolution before the House in that the resolution provides for a general eight-hour day irrespective of the classes Of occupations. The convention recognizes that there are three or four groups, of employees and it divides them into industry, agriculture, commerce, and those who go to sea. The convention only covers industry. It does not cover agriculture, commerce, or seamen. Thus it is narrowed down to employees engaged in industry.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: May I ask the hon. gentleman to explain the difference between industry and agriculture?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The distinction is drawn in the treaty in this way: The treaty sets out certain classes of employment which shall be called "industrial undertakings." It provides:
For the purposes of this Convention the term "industrial undertaking:" includes particularly :
(o) Mines, quarries, and other works for the extraction of minerals from the earth.
(b) Industries in which articles are manufactured, altered, cleaned, repaired, ornamented, finished, adapted for sale, broken up or demolished, or in which materials are transformed ; including shipbuilding and the generation, transformation and transmission of electricity or motive power of any kind.
It goes on to define certain other specified undertakings which are classed as industry, including works of construction, building railways, transport of passengers or goods by sea or land. Then it adds-and this meets the point which my hon. friend has raised-
The competent authority in each country shall define the line of division which separates industry and commerce from agriculture.
It is referred to the competent legislative authorities in each country to, draw the line between industry, agriculture and commerce.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: ' Does not the first clause include agriculture? It says:	"other
means of producing or extracting things from the earth."


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, agriculture is expressly excluded and is referred to the competent authority in each country to draw the line


Donald Sutherland: Agriculture is
chiefly concerned with transforming materials into something a little different. It is not merely a matter of sowing the seed and reaping the harvest.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend evidently did not catch what I said. It is extracting minerals from the earth; not materials from the earth.


Donald Sutherland: Materials transformed.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend can see the document and peruse it for himself. It makes it quite clear that it does not apply to agriculture. There is no mistake; it is made clear beyond peradventure. The Convention provides for an eight-hours day and a forty-eight hours week, subject to the exception set forth in the Convention. These exceptions are briefly as follows: (1) Persons holding positions of superintendence or management or employed in a confidential capacity; (2) where the hours of work on one or more days of the week are fewer than eight, the limit of eight hours may be exceeded by not more than one hour per day. Where there is a Saturday half holiday then the other days of the week may exceed eight hours so long as the total working hours in the week do not exceed forty-eight. (3) where persons are employed in shifts the eight-hours day and the forty-eight hours week may be exceeded piovided they do not exceed the average of eight hours a day and forty-eight hours a week for a three weeks period.
Mr. BUREAU; In the other case the eight-hour day would be more properly defined as a forty-eight-hour week?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is what the Conference decided. It is an eight-hour day and a forty-eight-hour week. In fact that was one of the points of difference in the Conference. The employers wanted the forty-eight-hour week without the eight-hour limitations.


Jacques Bureau: That would be more sen* sible.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -and the employees
wished the straight eight-hour day. If this had been granted in all employments where the Saturday half holiday prevails, it would mean a forty-four-hour week. This Convention was agreed upon as a result of a long conference between employers and employees and representatives of the Government as a fair solution of the differences.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What has the League of Nations to do with this resolution? It stands by itself as I understand it and this Parliament can adopt it or not irrespective of the League of Natidns. Are we not discussing what is on the Order Paper, free from any interference, or control, or request by the League of Nations?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Entirely so. But as there will be before the Government of Canada a proposal dealing with this matter in the form of this Convention when it reaches the Government, I was simply explaining to the House the nature of the Convention so that the House will be seized of the matter and as a good and sufficient reason why this resolution should not be pressed at the present time. Some hon. members, including the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution, asked that the terms of this Convention might be stated for the information of members generally. I have now given the general terms of the Convention and I do not think there is anything to be gained by discussing the details of it at the present time. I will simply mention the further exceptions to the general limitation of hours of work contained in the Convention, because they are important.


John Hampden Burnham: Are we going to receive an explanation from the Minister of Justice before this sitting closes?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, the Minister of Justice will give an explanation.
There are exceptions in the case of accidents, actual or threatened also with respect to the processes required in an industry which by nature of the industry must be continuous. Provision is also made for seasonal occupations. So that great elasticity is possible to meet the varying conditions of industry.
Special provision is made for Japan and India and China. Japan makes the greatest advance of any country under the provisions -of this Convention. The only law of Japan at the present time limiting hours of work is the one regulating the horns of work for women and I think that is twelve or thirteen hours a day. Japan has no rest day on Sunday but has two holidays in the year. Under this Convention Japan agrees to a limitation in general industries to nine and a half hours a day and in the silk industry to ten hours, and to one rest day a week. In this respect it marks the greatest advance in limiting the hours of labour in any country in the world. That means a great deal for Canada and the United States. In the days that lie before

us the competition, the keenest competition, both as to employers and employees, will come from the great labouring classes in the Orient. It will be a great thing for the people of this continent if by means of a Convention like the present we get the hours of labour in Japan cut down from twelve or thirteen without any rest day each week to nine and a half or ten with a rest day each week, with the expectation that within a few years Japan will come into harmony with the general terms of this Conference. If nothing else were accomplished by the Conference at Washington than bringing Japan up to that point of cooperation with the other industrial nations in regulating the hours of labour, it would be well worth while anc! a great success.


Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: I am very happy indeed to meet what seems to be the general desire for an expression of opinion on my part upon the [DOT]question of the constitutional power of this Parliament to deal with the subject matter of this resolution, which, I think is the question that properly arises in connection with it. I quite understand that the natural desire of members for information with regard to the Labour Conference should have led to the very interesting discussion that we have heard on that subject; but I quite agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) that it is in reality-and I think in giving the explanation which he did give the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) recognizes the fact-beside this question.
, The Motion that we have before us is a Motion to this effect:
That it is desirable that to the extent of the jurisdiction of this Parliament a national eight-hour working day should be established immediately, subject only to the right of express private contract.
Now, as was pointed out, if my memory serves me correctly, by the leader of the Opposition, this motion or declaration that such an enactment should be adopted would not meet, and does not meet, the desire of those who want to have an eight-hour day made an obligatory day by law, because this resolution especially provides for an exemption from any rule that may be made wherever by private contract it is stipulated there shall be an exemption; and I understood the hon. member (Mr. Burnham) who moved the resolution to have declared that his resolution, if adopted and action taken upon it, would carry us no further than to establish a state of the law

under which there would be a presumption that a day's work was eight hours.


John Hampden Burnham: That is right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is all. That presumption would be subject to become inapplicable or to be rebutted by any express stipulation in the contract. I think I am correct in that.


John Hampden Burnham: Yes, that is right.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Now, taking that position, I think there is room for little if any doubt-I think I may say for myself that I have no doubt, because one always looks upon a legal question recognizing the fact of the possibility of the existence of other people's opinions-that such a resolution, or an enactment based upon that resolution if adopted would be an enactment dealing with a subject matter entirely outside of the jurisdiction of this Parliament of Canada. Because, after all, what is it that that enactment would be? It would be a presumption applicable in every contract of lease or hire of work. Now the determination and the interpretation of contracts -the presumption that arises in, connection with contracts generally; I will not make exception of any special conditions such as those that appear in Bills that come before Parliament-falls under the designation of " property and civil rights," and to me it seems quite clear that we have no jurisdiction to declare that it shall be a presumption in every contract of lease or hire, where a day is mentioned and no number of hours, that a day means eight hours. I think that is clearly legislation dealing with the interpretation of contracts having to do with property and civil rights within the different provinces, and-giving my opinion, of course, for what it is worth'and for nothing more-I am of opinion that we would have no jurisdiction to enact legislation of that kind.
I would like to point out that of course the opinion of the Minister of Justice is of no binding effect upon this Parliament. It stands as worth what his opinion as a lawyer may be worth, and it has the weight of whatever may be his reputation as a competent lawyer. The Minister of Justice is not charged with advising the House of Commons, still less with imposing upon it his views of the law; he is the adviser of Government and of the departments of Government.
I think I might leave the matter there so far as the constitutional question is concerned as arising in connection with this
resolution. However, I may point out what would be the powers of this Parliament to legislate with regard to the conditions of contracts of lease and hire if by some treaty validly entered into either Canada or any of its provinces became bound to enact some particular legislation upon the subject. If such a condition arose, then under Article 132 of the British North America Act this Parliament iwould have power to legislate for the purpose of giving effect to any obligation imposed either upon the Dominion or upon any of the provinces. It is only from the point of view of the application of that article that we may be led-in fact,
I think we will be necessarily led-to a consideration of the question: Whether anything may arise out of any treaty or any convention that may be submitted to us by the Labour Conference which would confer jurisdiction upon this Parliament to enact such legislation as might be requisite to comply with or carry out the convention.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Might I ask the minister a question? Does he say that this Parliament, in view of section 93 of the British North America Act, giving the power to the province to legislate with regard to property and civil rights, would have any right to entertain jurisdiction until the provinces had or, had not acted with regard to something which should be done in the treaty with foreign nations under section 132?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that raises, not a question of the power of this Parliament, but the question of what would be proper in the action of this Government. If legislation were essential to the carrying out of an obligation imposed upon a province by a treaty made by the British Empire, there would be power in this Parliament to enact that legislation. If the legislation were of a kind which, under the rules of the constitution ^irrespective of any treaty obligation, would fall within the legislative competence of the provincial legislatures, I myself would think it highly proper for the Dominion Government, before it proceeded to enact the legislation required, to ascertain whether the provinces in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction were prepared to act. But as an abstract question of law I do not think that the power of this Parliament to act under those circumstances would depend upon previous application to the provinces; the power seems to be given in express terms without any exception or limitation. In regard to that, as of course in regard to everything else, I am giving merely my own opinion, and upon this very question I shall guard myself by saying'

that it is really an offhand opinion, the question only having been brought to my attention this moment.


Jacques Bureau: We would act through the provincial legislature.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to give any more off-hand opinions than are necessary, but the words go very far to confer a power to do that which is necessary so that the obligation is carried out, and I would be disposed to think we would be entitled to do something more than pass a law to carry out the obligation,-that being entitled to pass that law we would be entitled to enforce it. I have not the slightest doubt that if it were a matter about property and civil rights in the provinces, and Canada or the provinces became bound by a treaty to enact that kind of legislation, when we enacted it the courts would have to enforce that just the same as though it were a provincial law.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the minister take due notice of the fact that the resolution says, " It is desirable?" Would he mind discussing that word " desirable?"


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a pretty long cry from what is constitutional to what is desirable. I am not suggesting that this Parliament can pass this pious aspiration perhaps that such a law is desirable; but as I understand the resolution it would be in effect a declaration by us that it is desirable to the extent that it is within our constitutional power to enact the legislation; which in my opinion it is not.
Now, do not forget that the hon. gentleman pointed out the other evening that there are parts of this Dominion where we would have constitutional power. In fact, I think someone suggested that the only work done in those parts was by the wolves. However that may be, it does not seem to me that we could declare a national eight-hour day applicable in what remains of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The purpose of the resolution, no doubt, is to declare a national eight-hour day, and I think we might leave out of consideration what possibility there might be of declaring such a day to be effective in those territories. Certainly it would not be a national eight-hour day if put into effect in that way. Opinions, of course, differ on the question whether it is desirable that there should be legislation creating this presumption. That, however, has been threshed out from different points of view, and I do not think that I could add anything of value.

Now, I do not purpose to go into the question of the interpretation of the provisions of the Peace Treaty with regard to the manner in which conventions are to be dealt with by the different powers. I may, however, point out that as I read the provisions of the Treaty-I say this subject, perhaps, to further consideration, though I have very little doubt about it-they do not impose upon the nations an obligation to enact into law the particular conventions adopted. The obligation 's set forth is that the respective governments or the respective countries will bring before the competent authorities a convention for the enactment of legislation or other action. It goes no further than that. The convention goes on to point out that if that competent authority does not adopt legislation or does not act, there is no further obligation upon the country. If that competent authority does adopt legislation or take other action giving effect to the convention then it becomes the duty of the country concerned to report that ratification to the body in authority. When the conventions arrive at their official condition I do not think that we shall be in any very great difficulty in determining what action is incumbent upon us; certainly to the extent that action is incumbent upon us it will be our duty to take it. As I have pointed out, any action incumbent upon us deals in express terms with our bringing the matter before the competent authority.


Jacques Bureau: That would be before the legislatures.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. I should say
that unless there can be found in the terms of the Treaty as applied to the convention the creation of an obligation to enact some specific legislation, we shall not 'find what in my opinion are the essential conditions to giving jurisdiction to this Parliament to legislate upon the subject. Upon this question of legislative jurisdiction I understand that very strong opinions adverse to that which I have expressed are entertained by those who speak for some, at all events, of the provinces. In that condition of affairs it may become necessary to have this question authoritatively passed upon. It would be an undesirable situation, if it did arise, that we should fail entirely of action simply because all the different authorities considered that they were not competent to deal with the matter.


John Hampden Burnham: Will this Government now try to find out about the jurisdiction?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I might venture to
say that we think we know about the jurisdiction. But if there should arise such a situation as I have been pointing out; if each authority should say:	We have not
the jurisdiction,-then it might become desirable that we should get an authoritative decision as to where the jurisdiction lies. It is not in the power of this Government to impose its view upon the provincial governments, and of course it is not in their power to impose their views upon us. While I am not saying that it will necessarily be done, the House will see that it is readily conceivable that that will become, if not a necessary, at all events a very desirable step to take.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Having regard to the
phraseology of section 132 of the British North America Act, is the minister of the opinion that under this particular Convention there is any obligation resting upon a province as such, irrespective of its being a component part of the Dominion?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Whether there is an
obligation resting upon a province as such must depend upon what are the obligations in the Treaty. I have difficulty in conceiving that we would make a treaty imposing an obligation upon a province by name. But if by a treaty we undertook an obligation which in the ordinary operation of things could be carried out only by a province, then there would arise an obligation incumbent on that province as the result of the treaty. I do not conceive that the case that is contemplated is the making of a treaty whereby Canada would say: The province of Ontario will do such-and-such a thing. But if Canada undertook to do something which had to be done in the province of Ontario and which, leaving treaty obligations entirely aside, would be a matter to be dealt with by the province, then I think you would have the case that is contemplated in the statute of an obligation incumbent upon a province. I cannot at the moment quite conceive of a situation where you would have a treaty which would in terms undertake that a particular province would do a particular thing. It would be a treaty-making power that would undertake to do it; but in order to make that effective you must have something that is to be done by a province, or at all events through the exercise of powers which ordinarily belong to a province.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Even though this Parliament would over-rule the exclusive jurisdiction of the province?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the case came under Article 132, Parliament, as I understand it, certainly would be entitled to over-rule the exclusive jurisdiction.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: You would have to
amend the British North America Act, would you not?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, because Article 132 says that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Tn the terms of Article 132?


Jacques Bureau: Is not the province supreme?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are not in committee. The Minister of Justice has the floor.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Where there is concurrent power in the legislature of a province and in the Parliament of Canada to legislate upon the same subject, then the legislation by the Parliament of Canada supersedes the provincial legislation. Even if you treat Article 132 as leaving co-existent with Parliament's competency under Article 132 the competency of the provincial legislatures under section 91, then you have the case of concurrent jurisdiction, and I think that lawyers generally would agree that in such a case the legislation of Parliament would over-ride that of the provinces. But the only purpose of this express provision of Article 132 is to give to Parliament a power which it would have under the general provisions of section 91; by its express terms it confers a power with regard to matters constituting obligation on the part of the province. Therefore I do not think there is any difficulty in the way of its operating to confer-upon Parliament the power to do things which, under other circumstances, would be within the exclusive power of a provincial legislature.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I right in gathering from the minister's remarks that as a matter of jurisdiction this Parliament has no power to enact what is called the eight-hour day?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not want to say that there is no possible combination of circumstances-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mean, generally speaking.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the enactment of an eight-hour day to mean the enactment of a general law that in all contracts for the lease or hire of labour the day shall be eight hours and no more.

Eliminating all questions of carrying out Treaty obligations, my own opinion would be that Parliament has not the power to enact that legislation.


Jacques Bureau: Unless Parliament made it a criminal offence to work longer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. If Parliament felt justified, I suppose it is within its power to take matters which in their very nature one disassociates entirely from the idea of crime, and by declaring certain things with regard to them to he crimes, to put the matter into our jurisdiction in that way. But I myself would not be disposed to do that.


Jacques Bureau: Very few
would.
Mr. JOHN H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough) : Mr. Speaker, some days ago it was pointed out in the newspapers that the Drury Government in Ontario did not intend to put the eight-hour day upon their legislative programme, but intended to hand the matter over to a commission to find out what it might find out. It naturally occurred to me that it would also be advisable for us in this House to find out, if we did not know, and at any rate to declare our position with regard to the eight-hour day in order that the province of Ontario and all the other provinces might know what the scope of their jurisdiction was with regard to it. We have tonight received f,om the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) the explicit declaration that in his opinion-that is, such an opinion as he would give in advising the Government -this Parliament has no jurisdiction to consider a national eight-hour working day. That liberates, in my opinion, the province of Ontario and enables them to go on promptly with the work of enacting an eight-hour working day if they wish.
All this talk about whether or not the farmer w'ould stand for it, has nothing whatever to do with the question. It was all very interesting, although I knew it all before personally. As to the point: Is the eight-hour day desirable?-strange to say, among all the mighty legal minds in this House not one of them has fastened upon the essential word in the introduction of the resolution. [DOT] A resolution, as I understand it, is to enable the House to give an academic opinion after an academic discussion. But this House refused to consider the question whether an eight-hour day was desirable or not, and that is all I 
wanted them to consider. If they said it was desirable, then the next step was to be taken. If they said it was not desirable, that would have finished it. But they did not, and would not, consider whether or not it was desirable. They simply attacked, almost every one of them, the principle of the eight-hour day.
The object of the resolution has been fully attained, and as it serves no further purpose than that declared by the Minister of Justice I beg leave to withdraw the resolution, Mr. Speaker.
Motion withdrawn.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Tuesday, March 16, 1920.